I find it disturbing that people are falling back to state standards. Is that how we measure ethics??ÿ
Of course you shouldn't do it. At minimum there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. Even from.a selfish point of view, why burden your boundary with an unnecessary point of attack??ÿ
Our quasi-judicial decisions are only as good as the trust they engender.
New lines we create between ourselves and another have an obvious route to dishonest personal gain.?ÿ
There is a potential conflict of interest in most things. Like fixing your own breakfast. Or fixing your own flat tire.
I say survey what you like, recognize that somebody may accuse you, but do your job, and let em challenge you.?ÿ
Nate
Ps, if you cannot be trusted to survey your own property, you probably should resign from surveying! I know dozens of farmers who survey their own property, and they will even tell you about it.
Grin Nate
So basically anybody can survey their own property, unless they??re a licensed surveyor?
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
I find it disturbing that people are falling back to state standards. Is that how we measure ethics?
It would maybe make some sense for professionals to self-police if there weren't already plenty of avenues in place for suspicious clients to raise a concern, but that is obviously not the case.?ÿ If standards aren't going to be used then why are we wasting time coming up with them?
So basically anybody can survey their own property, unless they??re a licensed surveyor?
L*wyers can represent themselves in court. In most cases doctors can prescribe for themselves. So why couldn't a surveyor do his own property?
Of course, there are circumstances when those actions are not wise.
I find it disturbing that people are falling back to state standards. Is that how we measure ethics??ÿ
A formalized Code of Conduct written into state statute or regulation is pretty much the core of professional ethics.?ÿ So why wouldn't someone look to their professions formalized Code of Conduct for guidance if they have a question about whether an action is addressed within their professional ethics?
It is very apparent that individual opinions of the general ethics of the question vary.?ÿ We can see from this thread and all the past threads on the same matter that it is pretty well split as to yes or no on the question.?ÿ So why not look to the written rules of professional conduct to see if the question is addressed and if it is, what the written guidance suggests?
Because almost every state has standards that are extremely minimal, and because the absence of a prohibition against something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Many states have precision requirements like 1:5000 or even lower. Does that mean it is appropriate to measure to those standards?
Standards are developed not as guide for proffesional standards, but to provide an enforceable lower limit.?ÿ
A goog analogy is the licensing exams. They purport to ensure a minimum competency, but is passing a sufficient condition to recommend hiring a surveyor for a complicated, high value,.contentious boundary survey?
?ÿ
Because almost every state has standards that are extremely minimal, and because the absence of a prohibition against something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Many states have precision requirements like 1:5000 or even lower. Does that mean it is appropriate to measure to those standards?
Standards are developed not as guide for proffesional standards, but to provide an enforceable lower limit.?ÿ
Standards are not the same thing as a Code of Conduct.?ÿ Those two are usually separate items within the regulations or statutes.?ÿ So using that as the comparison basis is not addressing the question at hand.?ÿ If your argument is that a written Code of Conduct provides only a minimal amount of guidance, then I do not disagree that they are not a fully formed set of "ethics rules".?ÿ But opinions based on how things have been done either in a region or by individuals are also not fully formed "ethics rules" - they're opinions.?ÿ That is why there are two sets of answers being seen within this discussion.
because the absence of a prohibition against something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Except that the language as written and discussed on this particular matter (which language may vary by state) doesn't have an absence of a prohibition, it has a clear directive of what to do in case a potential conflict of interest may occur.
A goog analogy is the licensing exams. They purport to ensure a minimum competency, but is passing a sufficient condition to recommend hiring a surveyor for a complicated, high value,.contentious boundary survey?
I disagree that this is a good analogy, but if it were, then the same difference of opinion would exist as to if the answer is yes or no.?ÿ If it is a fresh licensee with minimal experience and that experience was not as relevant to the "complicated, high value, contentious boundary", then probably not wise for that person to accept such a job (although I am certain there are people of the opinion that said new licensee is completely free to take on such a job).?ÿ However, if the licensee was a fresh license who happened to finally decide to get licensed after many years of working on such boundary issues, then they might just be the best person to handle the survey.?ÿ It is rare that one size actually does fit all.
Because almost every state has standards that are extremely minimal, and because the absence of a prohibition against something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Many states have precision requirements like 1:5000 or even lower. Does that mean it is appropriate to measure to those standards?
Standards are developed not as guide for proffesional standards, but to provide an enforceable lower limit.?ÿ
Standards are not the same thing as a Code of Conduct.?ÿ Those two are usually separate items within the regulations or statutes.?ÿ So using that as the comparison basis is not addressing the question at hand.?ÿ If your argument is that a written Code of Conduct provides only a minimal amount of guidance, then I do not disagree that they are not a fully formed set of "ethics rules".?ÿ But opinions based on how things have been done either in a region or by individuals are also not fully formed "ethics rules" - they're opinions.?ÿ That is why there are two sets of answers being seen within this discussion.
because the absence of a prohibition against something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Except that the language as written and discussed on this particular matter (which language may vary by state) doesn't have an absence of a prohibition, it has a clear directive of what to do in case a potential conflict of interest may occur.
A goog analogy is the licensing exams. They purport to ensure a minimum competency, but is passing a sufficient condition to recommend hiring a surveyor for a complicated, high value,.contentious boundary survey?
I disagree that this is a good analogy, but if it were, then the same difference of opinion would exist as to if the answer is yes or no.?ÿ If it is a fresh licensee with minimal experience and that experience was not as relevant to the "complicated, high value, contentious boundary", then probably not wise for that person to accept such a job (although I am certain there are people of the opinion that said new licensee is completely free to take on such a job).?ÿ However, if the licensee was a fresh license who happened to finally decide to get licensed after many years of working on such boundary issues, then they might just be the best person to handle the survey.?ÿ It is rare that one size actually does fit all.
You really are making my point well. With regards to the analogy, one size doesn't fit all is right on. Those that are arguing that if the code of conduct doesn't prohibit it, then its O.K. are missing that point.?ÿ
Yes, both sides are expressing opinions. There is no objective right or wrong in ethics. I'ts all opinion.?ÿ
Those that think this O.K. should ask themselves what they would think if they were resurveying a "self-survy" and found an "error" that benefited the self surveyor. What would you client think when you told them? What would that client be likely to do?
So basically anybody can survey their own property, unless they??re a licensed surveyor?
L*wyers can represent themselves in court. In most cases doctors can prescribe for themselves. So why couldn't a surveyor do his own property?
Of course, there are circumstances when those actions are not wise.
There is a fundamental difference between a surveyor and a doctor or lawyer. A lawyer's job is to advocate for their client. There is nothing unethical about advocating for yourself, as long as it's clear that is what you are doing. A doctor's concern is the health of their patient. There is nothing unethical about assuming control of your own health.
A surveyor's responsibility towards their client is different, we must produce the product our clients pay for, but our clients, regulatory bodies, and courts have made it clear that when it comes to a boundary, we are nit advocates of our clients law attorneys, or solely concerned with the welfare of our clients like a doctor. Our quasi-judicial function requires us to protect the public and the adjoiners.?ÿ
An attorney isn't responsible for their client's opponents rights, and a doctor's successful treatment of their clients health problem doesn't adversely effect their neighbors health.?ÿ
Of course you shouldn't do it.
You've got an interesting way of pointing out there can be differences of opinion on these matters.
Those that are arguing that if the code of conduct doesn't prohibit it, then its O.K. are missing that point.?ÿ
In reading the posts, it seems more like people are pointing out that should you chose to do so, then there are guidelines on how to approach it.?ÿ There are many things the code of conduct doesn't specifically state (i.e. don't cheat with your clients wife) that some people will decide to either do or not do based on their own belief system.?ÿ But in the case of a potential conflict of interest it is very clear that you get all parties aware of the situation.
Of course you shouldn't do it.
You've got an interesting way of pointing out there can be differences of opinion on these matters.
Those that are arguing that if the code of conduct doesn't prohibit it, then its O.K. are missing that point.?ÿ
In reading the posts, it seems more like people are pointing out that should you chose to do so, then there are guidelines on how to approach it.?ÿ There are many things the code of conduct doesn't specifically state (i.e. don't cheat with your clients wife) that some people will decide to either do or not do based on their own belief system.?ÿ But in the case of a potential conflict of interest it is very clear that you get all parties aware of the situation.
Expressing my opinion, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that there are other opinions.
Making people aware, in the present, before trouble arrises, doesn't protect you after trouble arises. If someone suspects you intentionally surveyed incorrectly to your benifit, the fact that you disclosed the potential conflict of interst won't help.?ÿ
?ÿ
If someone suspects you intentionally surveyed incorrectly to your benifit, the fact that you disclosed the potential conflict of interst won't help.?ÿ
If the OP has already worked everything out with the neighbor and the neighbor is fine with the survey and the survey is conducted as discussed with the neighbor.?ÿ Then the party that might come back after the fact is the neighbor (at least initially).?ÿ This is no different than folks who decide which clients pay the balance in full in advance based on experience.?ÿ Either the neighbor is someone who understands that the OP is going to do the job correctly and be fine with it or not.
?ÿ
Hypothetical extrapolated from the original post and the quoted section from you -
Let's suppose someone suspects you intentionally surveyed incorrectly (which could be questioned anytime you conduct a survey for anyone if the neighbor disagrees with it).?ÿ BUT the surveyor actually did the job correctly.
What happens?
Disclosure to the original parties involved in the transaction "won't help".?ÿ Won't help what?
If I'm not technically, professionally, ethically, and morally qualified to survey my own property then I'm not qualified to do anyone's.
@jon-payne you hit the nail on the head, "what happens if you did it correctly?" You will have a much harder time convincing that you did correctly, won't you? And that's the heart of the problem?
"Either the neighbor is someone who understands that the OP is going to do the job correctly and be fine with it or not." Again, it is a lot easier to convince someone that you did the job correctly, and convince them to be O.K. with the results, when the thing about your work that surprises them happens to benifit you. You don't see that?
If I'm not technically, professionally, ethically, and morally qualified to survey my own property then I'm not qualified to do anyone's.
Your technical abilities are completely irrelevant. Would you trust a very competent judge to be the judge in a lawsuit against himself?
@aliquot I find your analogy to be flawed again.?ÿ How about an example that actually applies to the OP's question of working for their self in a real estate transaction in which they are the buyer.
Is a lawyer allowed to represent him/her self in a real estate transaction??ÿ Yes in most states.?ÿ In fact, they can often easily get a broker license by filling out paperwork to do so and skipping the working under a licensed Real Estate Broker; thereby saving or getting a part of the commission of the sale.
Is a lawyer allowed to represent both parties in a real estate transaction? Yes in many states.?ÿ In these cases, they are required to disclose to both parties the potential conflict of interest and make sure that everyone understands that they are to remove themselves from representing either party should the potential conflict of interest become something that can not be dealt with in an impartial manner.?ÿ Leaving it up to their professional judgement.?ÿ While not required, it is strongly recommended that they use a standard form for disclosure signed by interested parties.
Where would a lawyer find out if these things are allowed??ÿ By looking to their code of professional ethics and/or by reviewing an explanatory opinion as put out by the bar for their state.
@aliquot Let's try again - What is the thing that won't be helped by full disclosure up front??ÿ You have stated that disclosure won't help.?ÿ That implies that there is something that needed help.?ÿ So what is the something that you foresee needed help?
If I'm not technically, professionally, ethically, and morally qualified to survey my own property then I'm not qualified to do anyone's.
Your technical abilities are completely irrelevant. Would you trust a very competent judge to be the judge in a lawsuit against himself?
We render professional opinions, not verdicts.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
If I'm not technically, professionally, ethically, and morally qualified to survey my own property then I'm not qualified to do anyone's.
Your technical abilities are completely irrelevant. Would you trust a very competent judge to be the judge in a lawsuit against himself?
We render professional opinions, not verdicts.
Our proffesional opinions are quasi-verditcs. Our work has no value, if our clients can not expect that all will abide by our quasi-verdict.