Step 4: Full View

Entities, provisions, decisions, and narrative

Back to Case
Confidentiality of Competitor Information Submitted to Government Agency
Step 4 of 5

152

Entities

4

Provisions

3

Precedents

15

Questions

17

Conclusions

Stalemate

Transformation
Stalemate Competing obligations remain in tension without clear resolution
Engineer A is permanently embedded in a dual-obligation structure: confidentiality to Company X (indefinite, per C2/C5) and faithful agency to Company Y (C4/C17), with neither duty superseding or dissolving the other. Rather than a clean handoff or cyclical alternation, the Board's resolution locks Engineer A into simultaneous, ongoing compliance with both obligations, scoping rather than resolving the underlying tension (C4: 'not a tension the Board resolves through elimination but through prioritization').
Full Entity Graph
Loading...
Context: 0 Normative: 0 Temporal: 0 Synthesis: 0
Filter:
Building graph...
Entity Types
Synthesis Reasoning Flow
Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chain

The board's deliberative chain: which code provisions informed which ethical questions, and how those questions were resolved. Toggle "Show Entities" to see which entities each provision applies to.

Nodes:
■ Provision (e.g., I.1.) ◆ Question: Board = board-explicit, Impl = implicit, Tens = principle tension, Theo = theoretical, CF = counterfactual ▬ Conclusion: Board = board-explicit, Resp = question response, Ext = analytical extension, Synth = principle synthesis ▬ Entity (hidden by default)
Edges:
→ informs → answered by → applies to
Provisions (4)
View Extraction

All provisions in play for this case: the union of board-stated references and analysis-found citations (see each provision's provenance badge). The OntServe case page's Cited NSPE Provisions panel shows the subset actually cited by the committed conclusions, so its count can be lower.

II.4 board + analysis Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 17)
Obligation
Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty
This provision directly requires engineers to act as faithful agents or trustees for their employer
Action
Government Employment Acceptance
Engineer must act as faithful agent when accepting government employment involving competitor data
State
Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession
Faithful agency duty governs handling of confidential information gained from prior employer
Obligation (2)
  • Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty
    This provision directly requires engineers to act as faithful agents or trustees for their employer
  • Engineer A Loyalty Duty
    This provision establishes the trust and loyalty obligation owed to an employer
Action (2)
  • Government Employment Acceptance
    Engineer must act as faithful agent when accepting government employment involving competitor data
  • Competitor Position Acceptance
    Engineer must act as faithful agent when later working for a competitor after handling their confidential data
State (3)
  • Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession
    Faithful agency duty governs handling of confidential information gained from prior employer
  • Engineer A Agency To Company Y Transition
    Trustee duty to former employer continues despite change of employer
  • Board Uncertainty on Duty Duration
    Uncertainty concerns how long the faithful agent duty persists after leaving employment
Constraint (1)
  • Engineer A Design Information Confidentiality
    Acting as a faithful agent requires Engineer A to protect confidential client design information from disclosure or misuse
Principle (2)
  • Loyalty to Former Employer and Clients
    This provision establishes the faithful agent duty that grounds the confidentiality obligation.
  • Confidentiality of Company X Design Information
    Acting as a faithful agent requires protecting confidential information gained during employment.
Role (2)
  • Engineer A Government Agency Engineer
    As a government employee she owed faithful agency duties regarding information handling
  • Engineer A Company Y Engineer
    As an engineer she must act as a faithful agent to her new employer without misusing prior confidential data
Event (1)
  • Confidential Information Access
    Faithful agency duty governs handling of confidential information obtained during service
Resource (3)
  • NSPE Code of Ethics
    This provision is part of the NSPE Code of Ethics addressing faithful agency and trustee duties
  • BER Case No. 74-2
    This case involves divided loyalties which relates to acting as a faithful agent or trustee
  • BER Case No. 82-6
    This case involves retention by an adverse party which implicates faithful agency obligations
Capability (1)
  • Engineer A Confidentiality Judgment
    Acting as a faithful agent requires exercising judgment to protect prior clients confidential information
II.4.a board + analysis Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 9)
Action
Competitor Position Acceptance
Engineer should disclose potential conflict of interest arising from prior access to competitor confidential information
State
Engineer A Agency To Company Y Transition
Moving to a competitor creates a potential conflict of interest that must be disclosed
Principle
Conflict of Interest Avoidance by Engineer A
This provision requires disclosure of conflicts that could influence judgment or service quality.
Action (1)
  • Competitor Position Acceptance
    Engineer should disclose potential conflict of interest arising from prior access to competitor confidential information
State (2)
  • Engineer A Agency To Company Y Transition
    Moving to a competitor creates a potential conflict of interest that must be disclosed
  • Competitor Employment With Company X Information
    Working for a competitor with knowledge of Company X requires disclosure of conflict
Principle (2)
  • Conflict of Interest Avoidance by Engineer A
    This provision requires disclosure of conflicts that could influence judgment or service quality.
  • Employment Mobility of Engineer A
    The duty to disclose conflicts relates to conditions on Engineer A's new employment.
Role (1)
  • Engineer A Company Y Engineer
    She must disclose the potential conflict of interest arising from prior access to a competitor's confidential data
Resource (2)
  • NSPE Code of Ethics
    This provision is part of the NSPE Code of Ethics addressing disclosure of conflicts of interest
  • BER Case No. 74-2
    This case concerns divided loyalties which directly relates to conflicts of interest disclosure
Capability (1)
  • Engineer A Confidentiality Judgment
    Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest relates directly to her judgment about handling confidential information
III.4 board + analysis Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 20)
Obligation
Engineer A Confidentiality Duty
This provision prohibits disclosure of confidential business or technical information without consent
Action
Confidential Information Submission
Provision directly prohibits disclosure of confidential business information submitted by competitors
State
Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession
Directly addresses non-disclosure of confidential technical information from a former employer
Obligation (2)
  • Engineer A Confidentiality Duty
    This provision prohibits disclosure of confidential business or technical information without consent
  • Engineer A Loyalty Duty
    This provision underlies the continuing obligation to protect confidential information after employment ends
Action (2)
  • Confidential Information Submission
    Provision directly prohibits disclosure of confidential business information submitted by competitors
  • Competitor Position Acceptance
    Engineer must not disclose confidential competitor information when moving to a new position
State (3)
  • Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession
    Directly addresses non-disclosure of confidential technical information from a former employer
  • Competitor Employment With Company X Information
    Prohibits disclosing Company X's confidential information while working for a competitor
  • Consent Irrelevance for Company X Information
    Confidentiality obligation applies regardless of whether consent issues are raised
Constraint (1)
  • Engineer A Design Information Confidentiality
    This provision directly prohibits disclosing confidential business or technical information of a client without consent
Principle (3)
  • Confidentiality of Company X Design Information
    This provision directly prohibits disclosure of confidential information gained from a public body or client.
  • Confidentiality of Company X Information
    This provision underlies the condition that Engineer A not disclose Company X's proprietary information.
  • Loyalty to Former Employer and Clients
    This provision codifies the duty of confidentiality tied to faithful agency.
Role (2)
  • Engineer A Government Agency Engineer
    She gained confidential business and technical information from Company X while at the agency
  • Engineer A Company Y Engineer
    She must not disclose Company X's confidential information to her new employer Company Y
Event (1)
  • Confidential Information Access
    This provision directly prohibits disclosure of confidential information accessed without consent
Resource (3)
  • NSPE Code of Ethics
    This provision is part of the NSPE Code of Ethics addressing confidentiality of client information
  • BER Case No. 85-4
    This case directly addresses confidential information gained from a former client
  • BER Case No. 82-6
    This case involves retention by an adverse party without former client consent implicating confidentiality
Capability (3)
  • Engineer A Confidentiality Judgment
    This provision directly requires protecting confidential business information from prior employer or client
  • Engineer A Specialized Knowledge
    Her specialized knowledge includes confidential proprietary information that must not be disclosed
  • Board Precedent Reasoning
    The Board applies prior confidentiality rulings to interpret this provisions requirements
III.4.a board + analysis Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or practice in connection with a specific project for which the engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 14)
Action
Employment Termination
Provision governs arranging new employment connected to specialized knowledge gained from a specific project
State
Engineer A Agency To Company Y Transition
Governs arranging new employment connected to a specific project without consent
Constraint
Engineer A Design Information Confidentiality
This provision restricts using specialized knowledge gained on a project for new employment without consent, reinforcing the confidentiality constraint
Action (2)
  • Employment Termination
    Provision governs arranging new employment connected to specialized knowledge gained from a specific project
  • Competitor Position Acceptance
    Provision restricts accepting new employment using specialized knowledge from prior confidential project without consent
State (2)
  • Engineer A Agency To Company Y Transition
    Governs arranging new employment connected to a specific project without consent
  • Engineer A Conditional Employment Permissibility
    Permissibility of new employment depends on consent of interested parties per this provision
Constraint (1)
  • Engineer A Design Information Confidentiality
    This provision restricts using specialized knowledge gained on a project for new employment without consent, reinforcing the confidentiality constraint
Principle (2)
  • Employment Mobility of Engineer A
    This provision addresses restrictions on arranging new employment using specialized project knowledge.
  • Conflict of Interest Avoidance by Engineer A
    This provision requires consent from interested parties to avoid conflicts from specialized knowledge.
Role (1)
  • Engineer A Company Y Engineer
    She sought new employment with a competitor connected to the specialized confidential information she previously gained
Event (1)
  • Confidential Information Access
    Specialized knowledge gained through confidential access cannot be used for new engagements without consent
Resource (3)
  • NSPE Code of Ethics
    This provision is part of the NSPE Code of Ethics addressing use of specialized knowledge without consent
  • BER Case No. 85-4
    This case addresses switching sides using specialized knowledge from a former client
  • BER Case No. 82-6
    This case involves an engineer being retained by an adverse party without former client consent
Capability (2)
  • Engineer A Specialized Knowledge
    This provision restricts use of specialized knowledge gained from a specific project without consent
  • Board Precedent Reasoning
    The Board distinguishes prior cases to determine how specialized knowledge rules apply here
Cross-Case Connections
View Extraction
Explicit Board-Cited Precedents 3 Lineage Graph

Cases explicitly cited by the Board in this opinion. These represent direct expert judgment about intertextual relevance.

Principle Established:

A part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice does not preclude providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities when loyalties are not divided.

Citation Context:

Cited to illustrate a situation where an engineer's part-time consulting role for municipalities did not create divided loyalties, providing context for analyzing conflicting obligations to different clients.

Relevant Excerpts
discussion: "In BER Case No. 74-2, the Board held that a part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities."

Principle Established:

An engineer retained by one party (e.g., the government) cannot ethically be retained by an opposing party (e.g., a contractor with a claim against that government) without the former client's consent, per Code Section III.4.b.

Citation Context:

Cited as an example where an engineer could not switch sides to represent an opposing party's interests without the former client's consent, illustrating the duty of loyalty and confidentiality to former clients.

Relevant Excerpts
discussion: "In BER Case No. 82-6, the Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the US government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would not be ethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam."

Principle Established:

An engineer retains an ethical obligation to protect confidential information and maintain a duty of trust and loyalty to a former client even after the professional relationship has ended, and cannot simply claim to provide a 'separate and independent' analysis for an opposing party.

Citation Context:

Cited at length to explain that an engineer's ethical obligation of confidentiality and loyalty to a former client persists even after the professional relationship ends, and that merely terminating a relationship or claiming independence does not resolve the conflict of interest.

Relevant Excerpts
discussion: "In another BER case, Case No. 85-4, Engineer A, a forensic engineer, was hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case."
discussion: "It may be argued that Engineer A's loyalties under the facts in BER Case No. 85-4 were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with the plaintiff's attorney."
Implicit Similar Cases 10 Similarity Network

Cases sharing ontology classes or structural similarity. These connections arise from constrained extraction against a shared vocabulary.

Component Similarity 54% Facts Similarity 56% Discussion Similarity 73% Provision Overlap 25% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 100% Principle Overlap 82%
Shared provisions: III.4.b Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 62% Facts Similarity 61% Discussion Similarity 59% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 50% Principle Overlap 70%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 56% Facts Similarity 57% Discussion Similarity 73% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 67% Principle Overlap 70%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 62% Facts Similarity 55% Discussion Similarity 65% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 33% Principle Overlap 56%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 60% Facts Similarity 48% Discussion Similarity 67% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 14% Principle Overlap 80%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 58% Facts Similarity 46% Discussion Similarity 64% Outcome Alignment 50% Tag Overlap 100% Principle Overlap 64%
View Synthesis
Component Similarity 58% Facts Similarity 52% Discussion Similarity 74% Outcome Alignment 100% Principle Overlap 74%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 54% Facts Similarity 67% Discussion Similarity 74% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 17% Principle Overlap 65%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 50% Facts Similarity 41% Discussion Similarity 58% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 29% Principle Overlap 65%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 52% Facts Similarity 50% Discussion Similarity 71% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 12% Principle Overlap 69%
Same outcome ethical View Synthesis
Questions & Conclusions (1 board)
View Extraction
Board Board question 1

What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these circumstances?

Board conclusion Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A’s employment with the government agency and makes this obligation clear to Company Y before accepting employment.
Resolved by: Employment mobility is permitted to prevail over residual loyalty concerns only because it is conditioned on strict preservation of Company X's confidentiality, so neither obligation is treated as absolute but confidentiality bounds mobility. (confidence 0.85)
III.4. III.4.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Implicit (2)

How long does Engineer A's duty of confidentiality regarding Company X's design information persist after leaving the government agency—does it expire, or is it indefinite?

AnalyticalThe Board's conditional approval implies that Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to Company X survives indefinitely and is not tied to her employment status with the government agency—her duty attaches to the information itself, not to the employment relationship through which she acquired it. This means the passage of time alone does not extinguish the obligation; only changes in the underlying facts (e.g., the information becoming public, obsolete, or Company X consenting to disclosure) would alter her duty.
Resolved by: The Board treats confidentiality as the anchoring obligation, allowing it to survive termination of the employment relationship that gave rise to it, rather than letting employment mobility or time erode it. (confidence 0.80)
III.4. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalRegarding Q101, Engineer A's duty of confidentiality toward Company X's design information is best understood as indefinite rather than time-limited. The obligation under III.4 arises from the sensitive nature of the information itself, not from the duration of Engineer A's employment relationship with the government agency. Unless Company X's information becomes public knowledge or Company X consents to its release, the duty persists throughout Engineer A's career, including her tenure at Company Y and any subsequent employer.
Resolved by: Employment mobility is affirmed as a right but is explicitly subordinated to the indefinite confidentiality duty, so mobility can be exercised only within the bounds set by ongoing nondisclosure. (confidence 0.80)
III.4. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

What practical safeguards or information barriers should Company Y implement to ensure Engineer A does not inadvertently apply or disclose Company X's confidential information while working on competing projects?

AnalyticalThe Board's conclusion, while framed around disclosure, leaves unaddressed the more subtle risk of inadvertent or unconscious application of Company X's confidential design knowledge in Engineer A's work at Company Y. Because engineering judgment often draws on internalized expertise rather than discrete recallable facts, mere non-disclosure may be insufficient to fully insulate Company X's proprietary interests. This suggests that Company Y bears a shared responsibility to establish information barriers or project-assignment safeguards, and Engineer A may need to voluntarily recuse herself from projects that closely parallel Company X's submitted designs, even without any deliberate act of disclosure.
Resolved by: Because the risk of unconscious use of confidential knowledge cannot be fully controlled by Engineer A's intent alone, the analysis extends confidentiality protection beyond mere non-disclosure to require shared safeguards and possible self-recusal. (confidence 0.65)
III.4. II.4.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalIn response to Q102, practical safeguards Company Y should consider include establishing an information barrier (ethical wall) that excludes Engineer A from projects directly overlapping with Company X's submissions, requiring her to sign a written acknowledgment of her confidentiality obligations, and instituting internal review protocols to verify that her design recommendations rely only on independently developed or publicly available information rather than knowledge gained from her government role.
Resolved by: The board favored preserving Engineer A's employment mobility while containing the confidentiality risk through structural safeguards rather than an outright employment bar. (confidence 0.78)
III.4. II.4.a. II.4. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Principle tension (1)

How should Engineer A's right to Employment Mobility be balanced against her ongoing duty of Loyalty to Former Employer and Clients, particularly regarding Company X's confidential information?

AnalyticalThe Board resolves the apparent conflict between Employment Mobility and Loyalty to Former Employer and Clients not by subordinating one to the other, but by making mobility conditional on continued confidentiality. Engineer A retains the right to pursue employment with a competitor, but that right is bounded by a persisting duty that survives the termination of the original employment relationship. This shows that mobility and confidentiality are treated as compatible rather than mutually exclusive principles, provided the engineer actively manages the boundary between them through disclosure to the new employer.
Resolved by: The board rejected a strict hierarchy between mobility and confidentiality, instead making mobility conditional on the engineer actively upholding confidentiality through disclosure, so both principles are honored simultaneously. (confidence 0.75)
III.4. II.4. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Theoretical (3)

From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill her duty of confidentiality to Company X despite no longer being employed by the Government Agency?

AnalyticalFrom a deontological perspective (Q301), Engineer A fulfills her duty of confidentiality not because of any ongoing contractual relationship with the government agency, but because confidentiality is a role-based moral obligation that survives the termination of employment. Kantian reasoning would hold that treating confidential information as disclosable simply because the employment relationship ended would fail to universalize as a rule, since it would undermine the trust necessary for any regulatory submission process to function.
Resolved by: A deontological framing treats the confidentiality duty as categorical, so it outweighs any claim that termination of employment dissolves the obligation. (confidence 0.72)
III.4. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

Would the outcome of Engineer A accepting employment with Company Y still be justified from a consequentialist standpoint if Company X's competitive position were harmed by inadvertent disclosures over time?

AnalyticalOn Q302, a consequentialist evaluation of the Board's conditional approval would depend on downstream outcomes rather than intent. If Engineer A's presence at Company Y later resulted in demonstrable harm to Company X's competitive position through inadvertent disclosure, the initial ethical justification for permitting her employment would be undermined in hindsight, even though the decision was reasonable given the information available at the time of her hiring.
Resolved by: A consequentialist lens weighs the justification of the decision by its actual outcomes rather than by the reasonableness of intent, so initial approval could later prove unjustified if harm materializes. (confidence 0.70)
III.4. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

Did Engineer A act with professional integrity by proactively informing Company Y of her confidentiality obligations before accepting employment, even though not explicitly required to volunteer this at the time of the job offer?

AnalyticalRegarding Q303, Engineer A's proactive disclosure to Company Y before accepting employment reflects a virtue-based conception of professional integrity that exceeds the minimal requirements of the Code. Although II.4.a. only requires disclosure of conflicts that could influence judgment, Engineer A's voluntary transparency demonstrates the kind of conscientious conduct the Code aims to encourage among faithful agents.
Resolved by: The board treated the minimal disclosure duty under II.4.a. as a floor, not a ceiling, and credited Engineer A's voluntary conduct as exceeding that floor without being compelled by any competing obligation. (confidence 0.75)
II.4. II.4.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Counterfactual (3)

If Company X had consented to Engineer A's disclosure of its confidential design information to Company Y, would the Board's conclusion restricting Engineer A's conduct still apply?

AnalyticalIn response to Q401, if Company X had explicitly consented to disclosure of its confidential design information to Company Y, the ethical constraint underlying the Board's conclusion would no longer apply, since III.4. explicitly conditions the confidentiality obligation on the absence of consent. In that scenario, Engineer A's employment with Company Y would be unconditionally permissible without the disclosure caveat.
Resolved by: The board resolved the tension by treating consent as a complete release valve, so that once Company X consents, the confidentiality principle no longer competes with employment mobility at all. (confidence 0.85)
III.4. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

If Engineer A had moved to a non-competing firm rather than Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, would the Board still have imposed the same confidentiality-disclosure conditions on her employment?

AnalyticalOn Q402, had Engineer A moved to a non-competing firm, the practical risk of harm from disclosure would be substantially reduced, but the underlying confidentiality obligation under III.4. would remain unchanged in principle, since the duty is tied to the sensitivity of the information rather than the competitive relationship between employers. The Board would likely still caution against disclosure, though the urgency and scrutiny attached to the conditional approval would probably be diminished.
Resolved by: The board weighed practical risk of harm against the abstract duty and concluded the duty persists in principle even as the practical urgency diminishes when the competitive relationship is absent. (confidence 0.70)
III.4. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

If Engineer A had never had actual access to Company X's confidential design submissions during her government tenure, would the Board's conditional approval of her employment with Company Y still be necessary?

AnalyticalRegarding Q403, if Engineer A had never actually accessed Company X's confidential submissions during her government tenure, there would be no confidentiality obligation to protect, and the Board's conditional approval—premised on the existence of such knowledge—would be unnecessary. Her employment with Company Y would then raise no distinct ethical issue beyond ordinary conflict-of-interest considerations.
Resolved by: The board treated actual access to confidential information as the necessary triggering fact for the confidentiality obligation, so without it there is no competing duty to weigh against employment mobility. (confidence 0.80)
III.4. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Analytical questions (5)

Questions the analysis generates beyond the board’s explicit questions: implicit issues, principle tensions, theoretical framings, and counterfactuals. A question with an identified source board question appears nested under that question above.

Implicit (2)

Did Engineer A have any obligation to notify the government agency or Company X about her move to a competitor, given her prior access to their confidential submissions?

AnalyticalOn Q103, the Board's conclusion does not indicate any obligation for Engineer A to notify the government agency or Company X of her move to a competitor. Her ethical duty runs to protecting the confidentiality of the information itself, not to alerting the original submitting party about her subsequent employment. This is consistent with the precedent in BER Case No. 85-4, where the obligation was framed around nondisclosure rather than notification.
Resolved by: The duty to protect confidentiality was weighed as sufficient on its own, with no additional notification duty layered on top since the code and precedent target disclosure, not transparency about employment changes. (confidence 0.75)
III.4. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

Should Engineer A recuse herself from specific projects at Company Y that directly involve or compete against designs she reviewed as a government employee, even absent explicit disclosure of information?

AnalyticalRegarding Q104, while the Board did not explicitly require recusal, a reasonable extension of its reasoning suggests that Engineer A should voluntarily withdraw from specific Company Y projects that closely parallel or directly compete with designs she reviewed at the government agency. Such recusal would reduce the risk of inadvertent disclosure and reinforce her faithful agent duty to both employers.
Resolved by: Faithful agent duty to both employers was weighed against employment mobility, resulting in a recommended but voluntary recusal rather than a compulsory rule. (confidence 0.65)
II.4. III.4. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C102
Principle tension (3)

Does Conflict of Interest Avoidance by Engineer A conflict with her Employment Mobility, given that any position at a direct competitor like Company Y inherently raises appearance-of-conflict concerns even without actual disclosure?

AnalyticalConflict of Interest Avoidance is not treated as an absolute bar to working for a direct competitor; rather, the Board implicitly prioritizes behavioral safeguards (non-disclosure, transparency with the new employer) over structural avoidance (refusing the job). This indicates that in the Board's framework, conflict of interest concerns are satisfied through conduct-based mitigation rather than categorical exclusion, meaning the mere appearance of conflict from working for a competitor does not override Engineer A's employment mobility so long as confidentiality is preserved.

How can Engineer A reconcile her Faithful Agent Duty to Company Y with the Confidentiality of Company X Design Information, if fully serving Company Y's design efforts might tempt or require drawing on knowledge gained from Company X?

AnalyticalThe Board's conditional permission reveals an inherent structural tension in Engineer A's new role: her duty as a faithful agent to Company Y (to apply her full expertise and knowledge in its interest) is fundamentally limited by her prior confidentiality obligation to Company X. This is not a tension the Board resolves through elimination but through prioritization—confidentiality duties arising from a prior fiduciary relationship take precedence over, and thus permissibly constrain, the scope of faithful service owed to a new employer. Company Y's acceptance of Engineer A's disclosure of this obligation before hiring her effectively means Company Y consents to a limited, rather than unconditional, faithful agency.
Resolved by: The Board resolves the conflict by ranking the prior confidentiality duty above the newer faithful agent duty, so faithful service to Company Y is permissibly limited rather than absolute. (confidence 0.70)
II.4. III.4. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalThe Faithful Agent Duty owed to Company Y and the Confidentiality obligation owed to Company X are reconciled by scoping the faithful agent duty: Engineer A can fully serve Company Y using her general engineering skill and knowledge, but must exclude a specific subset of information (Company X's confidential design details) from that service. This demonstrates that loyalty to a new employer is not unlimited—it is implicitly bounded by pre-existing confidentiality obligations, meaning faithful agency is defined relative to permissible information use, not absolute knowledge transfer.

Is there an inherent tension between Confidentiality of Company X Information and Engineer A's new Loyalty Duty to Company Y, since full loyalty to a new employer could implicitly pressure her to share competitive insights?

Also discussed in: C303
Decisions & Arguments (4)
View Extraction

Should Engineer A accept employment with Company Y only after disclosing her confidentiality obligation regarding Company X's information, or accept the position without such disclosure?

Options considered:
O1 Inform Company Y of the preexisting confidentiality duty toward Company X's design information before accepting the offer of employment. Board's choice
O2 Take the Company Y position without raising the prior confidentiality obligation, leaving the matter unaddressed.
O3 Refuse the Company Y offer altogether to avoid any risk of conflict with the confidentiality duty owed to Company X.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A reviewed Company X's confidential submissions while employed by the government agency, and after her government employment ended she was offered a position at Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X.

Warrant

Engineers must act as faithful agents or trustees and must not disclose confidential information of a present or former employer without consent; employment mobility does not override a preexisting confidentiality obligation.

Rebuttal

Would not apply if Company X's information had already become public knowledge or if Company X had consented to its disclosure, in which case no special notice to Company Y would be required.

Nondisclosure of Confidential Information of Former Employer or Client

Should Engineer A exclude Company X's confidential design information from her decisions at Company Y, or may she apply that knowledge to serve Company Y's interests?

Options considered:
O1 Base all recommendations and adjudication decisions strictly on independently developed or publicly available information, excluding anything learned from Company X's submissions. Board's choice
O2 Draw on the design insight gained while reviewing Company X's confidential submissions to inform work performed for Company Y.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A previously reviewed Company X's confidential submissions to the government agency and subsequently took a position involving competing design work for Company Y.

Warrant

Engineers shall not disclose confidential information concerning the business or technical affairs of a present or former employer or client, and this duty attaches to the information itself rather than to the employment relationship through which it was acquired.

Rebuttal

Would not apply if the information had already entered the public domain or become obsolete, or if Company X had authorized its use by Engineer A.

Nondisclosure of Confidential Information of Former Employer or Client

Should Engineer A voluntarily recuse herself from Company Y projects that closely parallel or compete with designs she reviewed at the government agency?

Options considered:
O1 Voluntarily withdraw from Company Y projects that closely parallel or directly compete with designs reviewed at the government agency, supported by information barriers. Board's choice
O2 Remain fully engaged on all Company Y projects, including those overlapping with Company X's designs, relying only on the pledge of nondisclosure.
O3 Take no additional safeguard beyond avoiding explicit disclosure, without recusal or formal information barriers.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A's professional expertise necessarily incorporates internalized knowledge gained from reviewing Company X's confidential submissions, and engineering judgment often relies on such internalized expertise rather than discrete recallable facts.

Warrant

Engineers must avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance of conflict, and must safeguard confidential information from inadvertent as well as deliberate disclosure.

Rebuttal

Would not apply if Company Y's project assignments and information barriers already sufficiently isolate Engineer A from any risk of inadvertently applying Company X's confidential knowledge.

Conflict of Interest Avoidance / Faithful Agent Duty

Must Engineer A notify the government agency or Company X of her acceptance of employment at Company Y?

Options considered:
O1 Take no affirmative step to notify the government agency or Company X, relying instead on maintaining confidentiality of the information itself. Board's choice
O2 Contact the government agency and Company X to inform them of her move to a direct competitor before or upon accepting the position.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A left government employment and accepted a position at Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, without informing either party of the move.

Warrant

An engineer's duty of nondisclosure protects specific confidential information rather than requiring notice of the engineer's subsequent employment; professional obligations are defined by the Code's confidentiality provisions, not by a notification requirement.

Rebuttal

Would not apply if a specific contractual or statutory notification requirement existed between Engineer A and the government agency or Company X.

Nondisclosure of Confidential Information of Former Employer or Client
Event Timeline (6)
6 sequenced 5 actions 1 events
Case timeline
Engineer A took a position with a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities, a role that gave her access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by companies seeking design approval.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.60)
Engineer A's acceptance of government employment set up the causal chain leading to access of confidential information, meaning this initial action carries downstream normative weight even though it was not itself judged as fulfilling or violating any duty.
State changes (1)
  • began: Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession
Company X, among other companies, submitted confidential and proprietary design information to the government agency in order to obtain approval for its facility designs, entrusting the agency and its engineers with that information.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.60)
Company X's submission of confidential information to the government office directly caused the confidential information access that later became ethically significant, making this action a necessary precondition for the eventual adjudication conflict even though it is not itself assessed against a duty.
During her tenure with the government agency, Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by companies, including Company X, seeking facility design approval. The access flows from her position under the agency's review process rather than from a discrete deliberate choice to acquire the information.
State changes (1)
  • began: Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession
Engineer A ended her employment with the government agency, closing her tenure during which she had gained access to confidential and proprietary design information including that of Company X.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.60)
The termination of Engineer A's government employment causally enabled the acceptance of the competitor position, which later fed into the compromised board adjudication decision, so this transitional action matters as the link connecting prior government access to the later conflict of interest.
State changes (1)
  • ended: Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession
Engineer A accepted an engineering position with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, while still holding knowledge of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information from her government tenure.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.75)
Accepting the competitor position was guided by the duty to be a faithful agent and trustee and to avoid the appearance of influenced judgment, which matters because this action combined with prior confidential information access to causally produce the adjudication decision that risked misusing that access.
State changes (1)
  • began: Competitor Employment With Company X Information
The Board concluded that Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y, provided she does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information she learned about Company X during her employment with the government agency.
Fulfills (1)
  • Nondisclosure of Confidential Information of Former Employer or Client
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.75)
The board adjudication decision fulfilled the duty of nondisclosure of former employer confidential information and was guided by faithful agency and confidentiality obligations, which is significant because it was the direct downstream product of both the earlier confidential access and the competitor position acceptance, showing Engineer A ultimately upheld nondisclosure despite the conflicted circumstances leading to that decision.
State changes (1)
  • began: Engineer A Conditional Employment Permissibility
Narrative (3 main characters)
View Extraction
Opening Context

Written in second person from the engineer's point of view, so you read the case as the professional experienced it. Underlined names link to the character's profile below.

You are Engineer A. For several years you worked for a government agency responsible for reviewing and approving facility designs submitted by private companies. In that role, you had access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by several firms seeking regulatory approval, including detailed submissions from Company X related to its facility designs. You have since left the agency and accepted a new engineering position with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X. You retain knowledge of Company X's design approaches, technical specifications, and strategic details that were shared with the agency under an expectation of confidentiality. As you begin your work at Company Y, you face a series of decisions about how to handle this knowledge and how to conduct yourself in your new role.

Main characters (3)

Each card shows the roles a person holds and the tensions those roles raise for them. A single person may carry several roles in the case, and a tension between obligations can implicate more than one person at once. Click Show all tensions for the full list.

Engineer A Roles in this case: Government Agency EngineerCompany Y Engineer

Guided by: Confidentiality of Company X Design Information, Confidentiality of Company X Information, Loyalty to Former Employer and Clients

As a government agency engineer, Engineer A owes confidentiality regarding Company X's design submission reviewed for regulatory approval. As an engineer simultaneously employed by Company Y, a competitor of Company X, Engineer A owes loyalty to Company Y's business interests. These duties pull in opposite directions because information learned in the confidential regulatory role could benefit Company Y if shared, and loyalty to Company Y creates pressure to use or disclose that information.

Attaches to role: Government Agency Engineer

Engineer A's duty to act as a faithful agent for Company Y, advancing its competitive position, conflicts with the constraint that design information obtained through the government regulatory role must remain confidential. Full faithful agency to Company Y might require applying insights gained from reviewing Company X's confidential submission, which the confidentiality constraint forbids.

Attaches to role: Government Agency Engineer

Loyalty owed to Company Y as an employer creates institutional pressure on Engineer A to share or leverage competitively useful information from the government review, directly opposing the confidentiality constraint attached to that regulatory role. This tension also implicates the Government Agency's trust in its reviewers and the fairness of the approval process for Company X.

Attaches to role: Company Y Engineer
Company Y Roles in this case: Competitor

As a government agency engineer, Engineer A owes confidentiality regarding Company X's design submission reviewed for regulatory approval. As an engineer simultaneously employed by Company Y, a competitor of Company X, Engineer A owes loyalty to Company Y's business interests. These duties pull in opposite directions because information learned in the confidential regulatory role could benefit Company Y if shared, and loyalty to Company Y creates pressure to use or disclose that information.

Company X Roles in this case: Approval Applicant

As a government agency engineer, Engineer A owes confidentiality regarding Company X's design submission reviewed for regulatory approval. As an engineer simultaneously employed by Company Y, a competitor of Company X, Engineer A owes loyalty to Company Y's business interests. These duties pull in opposite directions because information learned in the confidential regulatory role could benefit Company Y if shared, and loyalty to Company Y creates pressure to use or disclose that information.

Engineer A's duty to act as a faithful agent for Company Y, advancing its competitive position, conflicts with the constraint that design information obtained through the government regulatory role must remain confidential. Full faithful agency to Company Y might require applying insights gained from reviewing Company X's confidential submission, which the confidentiality constraint forbids.

Loyalty owed to Company Y as an employer creates institutional pressure on Engineer A to share or leverage competitively useful information from the government review, directly opposing the confidentiality constraint attached to that regulatory role. This tension also implicates the Government Agency's trust in its reviewers and the fairness of the approval process for Company X.

Other people involved in the case but not central to the opening narrative.

Loyalty owed to Company Y as an employer creates institutional pressure on Engineer A to share or leverage competitively useful information from the government review, directly opposing the confidentiality constraint attached to that regulatory role. This tension also implicates the Government Agency's trust in its reviewers and the fairness of the approval process for Company X.

The Board’s deliberation

How the Board of Ethical Review resolved the case, verbatim from its published conclusions.

Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A’s employment with the government agency and makes this obligation clear to Company Y before accepting employment.
Opening States (6)
Engineer A Confidential Design Information Possession Engineer A Agency To Company Y Transition Competitor Employment With Company X Information Consent Irrelevance for Company X Information Board Uncertainty on Duty Duration Engineer A Conditional Employment Permissibility
Summary
  • Holding two roles at once, a government regulatory reviewer and an employee of a competing company, creates a structural conflict of interest that cannot be fully eliminated, only managed through strict confidentiality.
  • The obligation to protect confidential information learned in a regulatory capacity takes precedence over and limits the duty of faithful agency owed to a private employer.
  • Permitting dual employment while imposing an absolute nondisclosure condition is a common but incomplete resolution, since it relies heavily on the individual engineer's self-policing rather than structural safeguards.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3