DP12

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

DP12

When notifying Engineer A, should Engineer B disclose only the existence of the new engagement relationship (minimum required by Section III.8.a), disclose both the engagement relationship and the preliminary review results (as actually occurred), or disclose only the preliminary review results without identifying the new engagement relationship?

Engineer B: Scope of Disclosure to Engineer A — Whether, when notifying Engineer A, to disclose only the existence of the new engagement relationship or also share the preliminary review results, given that the peer notification obligation and the faithful agent duty impose different limits on permissible disclosure

Limit notification to Engineer A to the minimum required by Section III.8.a — informing Engineer A that Engineer B has been engaged by the franchiser and that a review of Engineer A's design work has occurred or is occurring — without sharing any preliminary findings, conclusions, or client work product derived from the review.

Notify Engineer A of both the new engagement relationship and the preliminary results of the design review, on the grounds that Engineer A's opportunity to respond to technical concerns is substantively meaningful only if Engineer A knows what those concerns are, and that the peer notification obligation's purpose of preserving technical comment opportunity implicitly requires disclosure of findings sufficient to make that opportunity real.

Notify Engineer A of the engagement relationship as required by Section III.8.a, but seek the franchiser's authorization before sharing any preliminary review findings, treating the preliminary results as client work product that requires client consent for disclosure and preserving the faithful agent duty with respect to substantive analytical conclusions while honoring the minimum notification obligation.

Engineer B