DP3

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

DP3

Does Engineer A's duty to avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation derive from his own independent professional ethics — making it self-executing regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction — or is it properly framed as contingent on legal counsel's guidance, and how must Engineer A ensure that his forensic work product reflects purely technical objectivity without weaponizing his institutional committee authority over Engineer B?

Engineer A's obligation to maintain forensic objectivity and professional dignity toward Engineer B while simultaneously serving as an adversarial expert against him — and whether the Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication obligation is self-executing as an independent professional duty or contingent on Attorney X's direction

Treat the obligation to avoid litigation-related communications with Engineer B as a self-executing independent professional duty — refraining from any such exchanges regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction — while also ensuring that forensic work product is grounded exclusively in technical analysis and does not invoke Engineer A's committee standing to challenge Engineer B's credibility, and treating Engineer B with professional respect in all committee interactions for the duration of the litigation

Follow Attorney X's direction as the governing standard for all communications with Engineer B about the litigation — treating the communication restraint as a litigation-management safeguard coordinated through legal counsel rather than as an independent professional obligation — while relying on the adversarial process and opposing counsel's scrutiny to detect and correct any improper invocation of committee authority in the forensic work product

Treat communication restraint as a self-executing professional obligation and additionally request that Attorney X formally document in the engagement agreement that Engineer A's forensic opinions are rendered solely on technical grounds independent of any committee relationship — creating an explicit record that insulates both the forensic work product and the committee relationship from the appearance that institutional authority influenced adversarial conclusions

Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness