Engineer A Cross-Side Retention After Plaintiff Confidential Access — BER Case 85-4
S · State
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/106#Engineer_A_Cross-Side_Retention_After_Plaintiff_Confidential_Access_—_BER_Case_85-4
Properties
Instance of
Cross-SideRetentionAfterConfidentialPlaintiffAccessState
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Cross-SideRetentionAfterConfidentialPlaintiffAccessState
Active period
From Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z through Engineer A's agreement to provide report for Attorney X in the same case
Affected parties
Attorney X (defendant's attorney)
Attorney Z (plaintiff's attorney)
Defendant
Engineer A
Plaintiff
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Subject
Engineer A's structural conflict arising from cooperative confidential access to plaintiff's information followed by retention by defendant's attorney in the same proceeding
Terminated by
Not properly terminated — Engineer A accepted the cross-side retention, which the Board found unethical; proper termination would have been Engineer A's declination of Attorney X's retention
Triggering event
Attorney X's retention of Engineer A to provide engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant after Engineer A had gained cooperative confidential access to plaintiff's documents during prior retention
Urgency level
high
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A, throughout his first analysis, had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
Text references
Engineer A, throughout his first analysis, had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical
The Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind
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 owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/106#Engineer_A_Cross-Side_Retention_After_Plaintiff_Confidential_Access_—_BER_Case_85-4> a proeth:Cross-SideRetentionAfterConfidentialPlaintiffAccessState,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Cross-Side Retention After Plaintiff Confidential Access — BER Case 85-4" ;
proeth:activeperiod "From Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z through Engineer A's agreement to provide report for Attorney X in the same case" ;
proeth:affectedparties "Attorney X (defendant's attorney)",
"Attorney Z (plaintiff's attorney)",
"Defendant",
"Engineer A",
"Plaintiff" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "State" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "106" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "106" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A, throughout his first analysis, had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner" ;
proeth:stateclass "Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State" ;
proeth:subject "Engineer A's structural conflict arising from cooperative confidential access to plaintiff's information followed by retention by defendant's attorney in the same proceeding" ;
proeth:terminatedby "Not properly terminated — Engineer A accepted the cross-side retention, which the Board found unethical; proper termination would have been Engineer A's declination of Attorney X's retention" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A, throughout his first analysis, had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner",
"In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical",
"The Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind",
"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:triggeringevent "Attorney X's retention of Engineer A to provide engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant after Engineer A had gained cooperative confidential access to plaintiff's documents during prior retention" ;
proeth:urgencylevel "high" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 106 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T00:58:47.912957"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 106 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
106
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
First case
106
Generated
2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
Attributed to
Case 106 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T00:58:47.912957
Generated by
ProEthica Case 106 Extraction