An attorney who served as an external consultant to a local authority in a tender simultaneously provided services to one of the tender participants.
The Supreme Court ruled that the external consultant is in a conflict of interest situation. The conflict of interest rules govern not only an action taken in a conflict of interest situation, but also the very fact of being in a conflict of interest situation. Consequently, the prohibition on conflict of interest also applies to the activities of external consultants to the Authority, even if they lack operational authority. The test for the existence of a conflict of interest is an objective test, which examines whether a reasonable person involved in the details of the matter would find that there is a concern, to the required degree of probability, that the performance of the position would be influenced by other interests in a way that would prevent the position holder from performing his work impartially. Here, we are talking about someone whose significant client, to whom he provided services, is going through a tender and during which he participated in a tender in which he served as an external consultant. This is sufficient according to the “reasonable person involved in the details of the matter” test to create a concern for bias. Therefore, the external consultant was in a conflict of interest situation.
