Conflicts of Interest (Davis)

Apparent "Conflict of Interest" Clauses in the Code:

II 3c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters which are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interests the engineers may have in the matters. (99)

II 4e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a professional contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member. (100)

III 4a. Engineers in the employ of others shall not without the consent of all interested parties enter promotional efforts or negotiations for work or make arrangements for other employment as a principal or to practice in connection with a specific project for which the Engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge. (101)

III 5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests. (102)

III 5a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineering designs, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their product. (102)

III 5b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers of the Engineer in connection with work for which the Engineer is responsible. (102)

Note that situations involving conflicts of interest are always situations in which someone is charged with making a decision.

Central Questions regarding conflicts of interest:

• What is an interest?
• What is a conflict of interest?
• What is the moral relevance of conflicts of interest in professional relationships?

Davis appears to define the term interest in this way: "Interest" is just short-hand for any influence, loyalty, or other concern capable of compromising a professional's ability to act for the benefit of someone to whom she is professionally related. (See the bottom of 318.)

Margolis' Analysis: A conflict of interest is an avoidable exploiting of conflicting roles.

Davis' Response: "Legal ethics long ago worked out an analysis of conflict of interest as a situation tending to undermine independent professional judgment. This analysis can, I think, easily be generalized to cover situations other than those that lawyers face. So generalized, the analysis is both importantly different from Margolis's and significantly better. The analysis is importantly different because it connects conflict of interest with undermined judgment within a role rather than with conflict between roles..." (317-8)

The Lawyer's Analysis:

The [Legal] Code understands a conflict of interest to require only a) one relatively formal role (with occupants), the role of being someone's lawyer, and b) at least one interest tending to interfere with action properly in that role. The Code understands a lawyer's role to be exercising "professional judgment..., within the bounds of the law, solely for the benefit of his client and free of compromising influences and loyalties." The lawyer must be able to commit his legal training, knowledge, and sagacity fully to his client (within the bounds of the law and what the client wants done). (318)

Moral Relevance: Betrayal of Trust

• Under which conditions might it be morally permissible to betray the trust of someone?
• Under which conditions might it be morally acceptable to engage in a conflict of interests scenario?

Davis' Preliminary General Analysis (based upon the Lawyer's Analysis): A person, S, has a conflict of interest if (a) S is in a relationship with another requiring S to exercise expert judgment in that other's service and (b) S has an interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relation. (321)

Davis' Final General Analysis: A person P1 has a conflict of interest in role R iff:

1. P1 occupies R;
2. R requires exercise of (competent) expert judgment with regard to certain questions Q;
3. A person's occupying R justifies another person relying on the occupant's judgment being exercised in the other's service with regard to Q;
4. Person P2 is justified in relying on P1's judgment in R with regard to Q (in part at least) because P1 occupies R; and
5. P1 is (actually, latently, or potentially) subject to influences, loyalties, temptations, or other interests tending to make P1's (competent) expert judgment in R with regard to Q less likely to benefit P2 than P1's occupying R justifies P2 in expecting. (324)

Be able to construct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST case.

Be able to identify whether a specific case (perhaps one provided by me) contains a conflict of interest. Be able to support your position with an argument--perhaps even a diagram.

Be able to present an argument demonstrating either that the Margolis analysis of a conflict of interest is superior to Davis' analysis, or vice versa.