Here is the scenario: Client A wants to purchase some land from Client B. But before Client A makes an offer, they want me to do a site assessment to see if the land is worth any money. Client A is our top client in our office. This however, would conflict with Client B, who is one of our top client's company wide. Client B does not want us divulging any info about their property to outside entities. We don't want to piss off either client. Both are multi-million dollar contracts. But...the old PM for Client B, now works for Client A and has extensive knowledge about Client B's property. So here is the question: Would it be ethical to tell Client A to call the old PM (who now works for them) and ask him about the details of the property? This way I'm not crapping on Client B, but Client A is still obtaining their info. Is that good work practice?
If they don't want any information being stated about their property, how can they expect to sell it? Or, is this an intent to purchase last which isn't posted for sale? If it's posted for sale, then they have to give certain information. This would be things along the lines of contamination, boundaries, gas/utility lines, etc. Basically, nothing more than public information or what's required by law to sell property. Of course, have you contacted the client with the land for sale telling them there's an interested party?
The land is not listed for sale. Client A just wants to make an offer, but before they do, they want to see if the land is worth anything. Or if there is any negative impacts on the land. That is where the conflict occurs. Client B is not going to want me to release any negative impact info to an outside company.
I would approach client B and let them know they may have a potential buyer if they can get some land information. My guess is that the person working for A has either already stated information and they're looking for a more formal source of info, or possibly further updated.
And they will say "Fine, but don't release any environmental impact info from the assessment", which is the info Client A is really after.
Sounds to me like they're covering stuff up. At which point, while it's tough to walk from a sale, I would.
From an ethics standpoint, if client B does not want info released, you should not release it. Client A has to understand that. Ask them to put themselves in Client B's shoes. Would they want their proprietary info released that they have instructed you not to release? I think you understand that Hooker. I think after you explain your situation throwing in the fact that they have someone working for their company that has the answers they are looking for is fine. Just as long as the actual info doesn't come directly from you. JMHO.
No, in engineering, its called intellectual property. Because I go to work for a competitor does not give the new company a right to use the knowledge in my head to make bids, or contacts. Generally we require clients and they require us to sign non-disclosure agreements. Surely, you have a legal department that can answer this very quickly.
To answer you question....it would be unethical. It's pretty much the same situation I'm in and with my job. I have to sign a non-compete and non-dislosure in regards to giving up any information about past/current company that I work for. I have worked for just about every company in the same industry, so I've had to do this with the last two companies that I have worked for. It would be putting the "PM" in a bad spot to ask him anyways.
First question is.....from a legal perspective, what REQUIRED as far as disclosure? Second question relates to Q no. 1. After the laundry list of disclosure items have been divulged, isn't the client wishing to purchase smart enough to have their own tests conducted (to protect their potential interests)?
We do, and they told me to inform Client A that we were at conflict and could not do the project. But I think they are just protecting Client B, since Client B is a top client company wide, while Client A is just our top top client for our office. They don't really care about Client A.
You have to ask how Client A would feel if the roles were reversed. In my company this would be a blatant Code of Conduct Violation the would get you terminated.
I don't think your legal department is protecting Company B. I think they're protecting your employer from a lawsuit, which is their job.
