An attorney served as an external consultant to a local authority in a tender, provided, at the same time, services to one of the bidders in the tender.
The Supreme Court held that the external consultant is in a state of conflict of interest. The conflict of interest rules extend not only over an action taken while in a ‘conflict of interest’ state, but also over being in a state of conflict of interest. Thus, the restriction on having conflict of interest also applies to the activity of external consultants even if they lack operative authority. The test for the existence of a conflict of interest is an objective one, examining whether a reasonable person acquainted with the details of the matter would have found that there is a concern of the required degree of probability that the performance will be affected by other interests in a manner that will prevent the person in charge of performing from carrying it out in an impartial manner. Here, a person whose substantial client, for whom he provided services prior to and during the tender, participated as a bidder in the tender in which he served as an external consultant. This is sufficient under the "reasonable person acquainted with the details of the matter" test, in order to establish concern for bias. Hence the external consultant was in a state of conflict of interest.