DP1

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP1

Should Firm A accept private developer clients within the same jurisdiction where it serves as the city's retained plan review and construction inspection engineer, or must it structurally separate those roles to preserve its impartiality toward the city?

Firm A, retained by the city to perform plan review and construction inspection of private developer projects — with developers paying Firm A's fees directly — must decide whether to simultaneously accept private design and inspection engagements from those same developers, recognizing that this dual-role arrangement creates a structural conflict between its duty of faithful agency to the city and its financial relationships with the regulated parties.

Firm A refuses to accept any private design or inspection engagements from developers whose projects are subject to Firm A's city-mandated review and inspection authority, maintaining complete structural separation between its public agency role and its private practice.

Firm A accepts private developer engagements while proactively disclosing each dual relationship to the city and obtaining formal city consent, relying on transparency and good-faith inspection practices to manage the conflict without structural separation.

Firm A accepts private developer engagements but adopts a BER 75-7-style abstention model, recusing itself from city review and inspection of any project for which it also serves as the developer's private engineer and arranging for substitute inspection coverage on those projects.

Client