Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/106#Engineer_A_Adversarial_Retention_Motivation_Awareness
Properties
Instance of
AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation
Case context
Attorney X learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination by plaintiff's counsel and sought to retain Engineer A specifically because of those circumstances, believing Engineer A would provide a favorable report for the defendant.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining Engineer A was the belief that Engineer A would provide a favorable report for the defendant — informed by Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidential information — and to decline retention on that basis.
Temporal scope
Upon being approached by Attorney X
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client.
Text references
'Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination,' the Board noted, 'this would not excuse his actions.'
The BER concluded that Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client.
TTL
@prefix case106: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/106#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case106:Engineer_A_Adversarial_Retention_Motivation_Awareness a proeth:AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case106:Engineer_A_Forensic_Expert_Switching_Sides_Prohibition ;
proeth:casecontext "Attorney X learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination by plaintiff's counsel and sought to retain Engineer A specifically because of those circumstances, believing Engineer A would provide a favorable report for the defendant." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case106:Switching_Sides_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_A_Forensic_Expert_Role_in_BER_Case_85-4 ;
proeth:discoveredincase "106" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "106" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining Engineer A was the belief that Engineer A would provide a favorable report for the defendant — informed by Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidential information — and to decline retention on that basis." ;
proeth:sourcetext "it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon being approached by Attorney X" ;
proeth:textreferences "'Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination,' the Board noted, 'this would not excuse his actions.'",
"The BER concluded that Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.",
"it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 106 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T00:58:47.918689"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 106 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
106
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
First case
106
Generated
2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
Attributed to
Case 106 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T00:58:47.918689
Generated by
ProEthica Case 106 Extraction