(03-31-2022 04:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I feel like I've had a similar back and forth with Frizzy where the idea of a potential COI doesn't exist to some people - that the gray area that actually exists in the real world - is just being glossed over. At my firm, we talk about potential COIs all of the time, and we sometimes decide that they do not warrant any action, and sometimes we take action by recusing ourselves from bidding processes, setting up internal firewalls, etc. But my experience has been that when there is a potential COI, we inform our client of that so we are above board (hence my comment about Thomas addressing it).

You decide for yourselves whether to report a COI. It's not decided for you by an outside party.

You've mentioned before that the potential COI should be investigated, and did not answer the question who should investigate and how the last time you were asked, so I'll ask again since you've said it again: please elaborate on how the potential COI should be investigated and by whom.

You've again stated that Thomas should address it, so I'll again point out that there's nothing he can say that would be believed by those who are convinced there's a COI. Nobody demanding he recuse himself will withdraw their demand just because he states there's no conflict of interest, so what would be the point?