Conflict of Interest Code

[Rick T]

I am curious how everybody treats this code and how it is interpreted. Basically I survey a parcel of land and in the process of the survey, 2-3 weeks later, the next door neighbors called because of the cards we left on their door and asked for a survey. While on the site of the first survey our client even informed client two that if they wanted their lot surveyed they can call us, which is exactly what happened. Know short of giving the whole story because I don’t believe in dragging clients deplorable behavior to this type of open forum, the board has delivered me with a citation for not providing in writing to both clients a conflict of interest letter. Now I do a great deal of professional witness testimony and have delivered many of these letters and request, but having to do one for every neighboring survey seems extreme. After all the purpose for this code is not for the properties relationship, but for the clients relationship. Otherwise do I need to give one to every member of an association in a condominium complex because I am surveying for two separate members. Will I have to inform a client that I had 20 years ago because I am surveying a lot he use to own.

When I surveyed the parcels in question there were no and still are no litigious matters. I would appreciate some feedback and opinions. If I am supposed to inform all contiguous clients and possibly wait for a response, I would like to know where it stops.

Thanks
Rick

[Warren Smith]

You must be referring to Board rule 476 (b) - the Code of Professional Conduct.
It seems that the scenario you described would fall under subsection (1), wherein a licensee who provides professional services for two or more clients on a project or related projects, the licensee shall disclose in writing to those clients his relationship to those clients.
I don't see how this would apply to potential surveys, but it is structured to come into play at the time you enter into a contract for the survey of an adjacent property - the "related projects". It could also be applicable if there are multiple owners, and your client may not be acting with the knowledge of his partners.
Your case sounds like there were contentious landowners which, apart from any boundary issues, may have been less so with a disclosure up front. Not much background to opine about, but this provision has a purpose.

[PLS7393]

This sounds crazy and your survey must have resolved an issue where one of the neighbors didn't like your resolution. From this, it sounds like any neighbor can complain to the Board because they didn't like a boundary resolution.

Becuse you performed a survey for both parties, is this a fine line, or is the Board acting on some other information? What if the two neighbors go in together on a survey and one neighbor doesn't like the boundary resolution? Can they complain to the Board?

[Rick T]

There was no and still are no conflicts between the neighbors. Outside of the details of the reason for the original client to file a complaint, I have a problem with the broadness of this code. I realize the need and purpose for it, but I believe that there should be some detailed subsections in this code. Frankly it would appear if I survey a piece of property and survey the same piece 20 years later I am obligated to write a letter to the original client informing them of the "conflict of interest" because it is a related project. Now this may be stretching it a bit, but it can be seriously debated by the Board. Also say I am surveying two parcels in a PRD or any subdivision with CC&R's, am I supposed to inform all members of the association because of their relationship to these parcels. Am I never allowed to survey any adjacent parcels separated by any amount of time without sending out a notice. I am only posing these questions because of the potential citations I could incur. I am very well aware of real conflict of interest situations and do send notices and request, I just want to know if I am not doing enough.

Rick

[Peter Ehlert]

"on a project or related projects" ... adjoining surveys would not necessarily be "related" if there is no conflict... to my eye, but I didn't get cited.
Something doesn't seem to add up here.

[E_Page]

If your survey for Client A (first client/complainant) was completed prior to beginning your survey for Client B, then there was no obligation to inform Client A until and unless he approached you to do some additional work.

If the survey for Client A was ongoing, then by strict adherence to the code, there was a violation if you didn't provide that notice in writing.

As a practical matter, Client A recommended you to Client B, so not only knew that his neighbor (B) was going to have a survey done, but steered that client to you - so far so good, the best form of marketing - and so had actual knowledge that you were performing B's survey for him.

Maybe A is upset that you didn't offer him a kickback for the recommendation.

Under the circumstances, it seems that this is one where someone at the Board would dismiss the complaint based upon the complainant's actual knowledge and the fact that there is no other conflict, thus no real basis for a complaint. Unless there are pertinent facts that show that you attempted to conceal from A that you were working for B prior to completing A's survey, and/or if A, rather than recommending you had indicated to you that there may be some potential issues with this particular neighbor, the Board should have either dismissed, or issued a warning. This seems much like getting a ticket for going 36 in a 35 zone.

Thinking of this one as a "Barney Fife" citation, seems appropriate.

[land butcher]

If, as Evan states, there is a possibility no violation exists, does the board issue a citation before investigation as in "Here's your ticket prove your innocence!"

[E_Page]

Didn't quite say that LB. Since Rick did not provide written notice, he is in violation according to the letter of the law. But since each client was aware of the work being performed by the other, and since there is no basis for conflict in the surveys, there is no harm and the purpose of the code was met in a practical sense in that they were each aware. The purpose of the code is to ensure that the parties are aware.

The other thing I thought of was the contributory nature of Client A's having recommended Rick to his neighbor. Not only was A aware of the work, but he had taken a step to help secure that work for Rick.