Downright fraud (charging for work not performed or expenses not incurred, using a client's proprietary information, etc.) is obviously unethical. However, there are several "time-honored" techniques that independent contractors/consultants use to grow their businesses which may be questionable:
* overstating one's experience, abilities, or confidence level to get the job
* recommending adoption of technologies in which the contractor wants to gain experience
* choosing a particular solution for one client because the contractor hopes the same solution can be sold to other clients
* withholding technical information from clients, to keep them dependent on the contractor's services
* agreements between contractors to recommend one another's services
* working for a previous client's competitors

How do we determine which of these practices are "ethical"?

On the one hand, one could say that it's the client's responsibility to prevent a contractor from taking advantage of them, so there is nothing wrong with the contractor being aggressive.

On the other hand, clients usually hire contractors because those contractors have knowledge and expertise that the client does not have. This puts the client in a position where they cannot properly evaluate the contractor's proposals or work. In such situations, some believe that a contractor has a duty to be honest and helpful, concentrating on the client's best interests rather than the contractor's interests.

In practice, contractors have to strike a balance between their own interests and the interests of their clients. In ideal situations, a contractor's actions advance everyone's interests. What should a contractor do when there is a conflict?
----
* First, do no harm.
** ...to your pocketbook. ;)

That's phunny, but not realistic. If I am not concerned with my client's well being then they will fail and I will be out one client. Let's keep some perspective here, folk.
----
* working for a previous client's competitors

''Wouldn't it be hard for any contractors to make a living if this were considered unethical? The alternative is one client per industry, ever.''

Non-compete agreements are very common. I even put them into my own contract boilerplate. I won't work for a direct competitor for a year after doing any significant work.
----
"...clients usually hire contractors because those contractors have knowledge and expertise that the client does not have..."

Yes, that does put the client at a disadvantage in their ability to evaluate when a consultant or job shop is jerking them around. It is incumbent upon us as professionals to tell them everything they need to know to make business decisions, while making sure they know we are the ones they can '''trust''' to make technical decisions. We earn that trust by supplying them with the data, information, knowledge, and wisdom they need to make well-informed business decisions.
----
"...contractors have to strike a balance between their own interests and the interests of their clients..."

Not so. By putting my client's interest above my own I demonstrate that I am trustworthy. If a client abuses that trust then they prove themselves to be unworthy, and I stop doing business with them. In no case do I harm my client by leaving them out in the cold because I was covering my own beau-tocks.

I do most of my work on a "work for hire" basis, so the client ends up owning the rights to everything I create for them. I write my contracts to protect the client and isolate them from legal problems if I unwittingly violate copyright or some other statute. I make it clear that the health of the client's firm is my primary concern, and my own protection comes a distant second. This approach makes my clients appreciative of my services, my support for their business, and my professionalism. This is why they come back to me and not to Joe Blow Development House and Carpet Sales down the street.
----
See: ContractorVsContractorEthics

CategoryEthics