DP5

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP5

If Attorney X instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and continue using the inaccurate report in settlement negotiations, what must Engineer A do, and does Engineer A's disclosure obligation extend beyond Attorney X to the court, the opposing party, or the public?

The scope and escalation of Engineer A's disclosure obligation when Attorney X, upon being informed of the data inaccuracy, instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and proceed with the original report — and whether Engineer A's obligations extend beyond the attorney-client channel to the court, opposing party, or public

Refuse Attorney X's suppression instruction, insist that the corrected findings replace the original report in the negotiating record, and if Attorney X persists, withdraw from the engagement while preserving the right to escalate disclosure to the court or opposing counsel to prevent the inaccurate report from producing a binding settlement outcome

Refuse Attorney X's suppression instruction and withdraw from the engagement, treating withdrawal as the full discharge of Engineer A's professional obligation on the grounds that Engineer A is no longer a participant in the proceeding and the attorney bears sole responsibility for subsequent use of the original report

Comply with Attorney X's instruction to defer disclosure of the corrected findings until after settlement concludes, on the grounds that the attorney — as the licensed legal professional responsible for the proceeding — is the appropriate decision-maker regarding the timing and manner in which technical findings enter the negotiating record, and that Engineer A's role as faithful agent requires deference to that judgment within the litigation context

Engineer A