DP2

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

DP2

Does Engineer A's simultaneous service as chair of the boiler code standards committee and as defense forensic expert against subcommittee member Engineer B create a conflict of interest that requires withdrawal from one role, or is the arrangement permissible provided Engineer A discloses the relationship, exercises independent judgment, and implements structural safeguards — and if the latter, are communication restraints alone sufficient or must Engineer A also recuse from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation?

Whether Engineer A's volunteer committee chairmanship over Engineer B's subcommittee categorically precludes his service as defense forensic expert, or whether the dual role is permissible subject to structural safeguards beyond mere communication restraint

Accept the forensic engagement, fully disclose the committee supervisory relationship to Attorney X, and voluntarily recuse from all committee decisions, evaluations, subcommittee appointments, and agenda actions directly affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation — while refraining from any direct litigation-related communications with Engineer B without direction from legal counsel

Accept the forensic engagement, fully disclose the committee supervisory relationship to Attorney X, and rely on communication restraint alone — refraining from written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without legal counsel direction — without formally recusing from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee, on the grounds that the Board found no clear conflict and that unilateral recusal could itself signal a conflict the Board did not find

Decline the forensic engagement entirely and advise Attorney X to retain a different qualified expert without committee ties to either party, on the grounds that the institutionalized supervisory relationship over the opposing expert creates an irresolvable appearance of impropriety that cannot be adequately managed through disclosure and behavioral constraints alone — preserving both the standards committee's institutional integrity and the litigation's credibility

Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness