Current Case Engineer A Conflict-of-Interest Absence Confidentiality Permissibility Assessment
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#Current_Case_Engineer_A_Conflict-of-Interest_Absence_Confidentiality_Permissibility_Assessment
Properties
Instance of
Conflict-of-InterestAbsenceConfidentialityDisclosurePermissibilityConditionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Conflict-of-InterestAbsenceConfidentialityDisclosurePermissibilityConditionObligation
Case context
Current case: The Board distinguishes the current case from BER 82-2 by noting that the attorney retained Engineer A on behalf of and for the benefit of the owner, with no divergent interests between them — removing the conflict-of-interest basis for the BER 82-2 violation finding.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.84
Importance
medium
Obligated party
Engineer A (current case)
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that, unlike BER 82-2, no conflict of interest existed between the attorney (nominal client) and the building owner (ultimate beneficiary), and that this absence of conflict removed the key basis for finding an ethical violation in disclosure — making the Section II.1.c. exception applicable without the complicating factor present in BER 82-2.
Temporal scope
At the time of assessing whether to disclose the structural defect findings
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
Unlike the facts presented in BER Case 82-2, there is not any conflict or potential conflict of interest that exists between owner and attorney with regard to the information.
Text references
Although Attorney retained Engineer A directly, he did so on behalf and for the benefit of the owner.
Therefore, the key issue in BER Case 82-2 upon which an ethical violation was found, is absent in this case.
Unlike the facts presented in BER Case 82-2, there is not any conflict or potential conflict of interest that exists between owner and attorney with regard to the information.
TTL
@prefix case136: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case136:Current_Case_Engineer_A_Conflict-of-Interest_Absence_Confidentiality_Permissibility_Assessment a proeth:Conflict-of-InterestAbsenceConfidentialityDisclosurePermissibilityConditionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Current Case Engineer A Conflict-of-Interest Absence Confidentiality Permissibility Assessment" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#Current_Case:_Attorney-Client_Confidentiality_Barrier_to_Imminent_Structural_Danger_Disclosure> ;
proeth:casecontext "Current case: The Board distinguishes the current case from BER 82-2 by noting that the attorney retained Engineer A on behalf of and for the benefit of the owner, with no divergent interests between them — removing the conflict-of-interest basis for the BER 82-2 violation finding." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.84" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#Conflict-of-Interest_Absence_as_Confidentiality_Disclosure_Permissibility_Condition_—_Attorney-Owner_Alignment> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "136" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T13:06:01.020008+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "136" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T13:06:01.020008+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (current case)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Conflict-of-Interest Absence Confidentiality Disclosure Permissibility Condition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to recognize that, unlike BER 82-2, no conflict of interest existed between the attorney (nominal client) and the building owner (ultimate beneficiary), and that this absence of conflict removed the key basis for finding an ethical violation in disclosure — making the Section II.1.c. exception applicable without the complicating factor present in BER 82-2." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Unlike the facts presented in BER Case 82-2, there is not any conflict or potential conflict of interest that exists between owner and attorney with regard to the information." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of assessing whether to disclose the structural defect findings" ;
proeth:textreferences "Although Attorney retained Engineer A directly, he did so on behalf and for the benefit of the owner.",
"Therefore, the key issue in BER Case 82-2 upon which an ethical violation was found, is absent in this case.",
"Unlike the facts presented in BER Case 82-2, there is not any conflict or potential conflict of interest that exists between owner and attorney with regard to the information." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 136 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T13:14:37.529161"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 136 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
136
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T13:06:01.020008+00:00
First case
136
Generated
2026-03-01T13:06:01.020008+00:00
Attributed to
Case 136 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T13:14:37.529161
Generated by
ProEthica Case 136 Extraction