Current Case Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity Compliance Failure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#Current_Case_Engineer_A_Forensic_Expert_Non-Advocate_Objectivity_Compliance_Failure
Properties
Instance of
ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
Case context
Current case: Engineer A is retained to provide expert testimony 'in support of the owner' and then instructed to suppress adverse safety findings; compliance with the attorney's confidentiality instruction causes Engineer A to function as an advocate rather than an objective forensic expert.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.85
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A (current case)
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to maintain objectivity as a forensic expert witness and to resist the attorney's instruction to suppress adverse structural defect findings, recognizing that compliance with the confidentiality instruction constituted adoption of an advocacy role inconsistent with the engineer's non-advocate status in adversarial proceedings.
Temporal scope
Upon receipt of the attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality over the structural defect findings
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Engineer Non-Advocate Status — Forensic Expert Objectivity in Litigation Context
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A's client was the attorney and technically Engineer A had an obligation not to reveal facts, data or other information in a professional capacity without the prior consent of attorney.
Text references
Engineer A's client was the attorney and technically Engineer A had an obligation not to reveal facts, data or other information in a professional capacity without the prior consent of attorney.
However, there were valid reasons why Engineer A should have revealed the information directly to the tenants and public authorities.
in cases where the public health and safety is endangered, engineers not only have the right but also the ethical responsibility to reveal such facts to the proper persons.
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_Forensic_Expert_Non-Advocate_Objectivity_Compliance_Failure a proeth:ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Current Case Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity Compliance Failure" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case136:Engineer_A_Confidentiality_Non-Override_Imminent_Structural_Safety_Compliance_Failure ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case136:Engineer_A_Confidentiality_Non-Override_Imminent_Structural_Safety_Compliance_Failure ;
proeth:casecontext "Current case: Engineer A is retained to provide expert testimony 'in support of the owner' and then instructed to suppress adverse safety findings; compliance with the attorney's confidentiality instruction causes Engineer A to function as an advocate rather than an objective forensic expert." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#Engineer_Non-Advocate_Status_—_Forensic_Expert_Objectivity_in_Litigation_Context> ;
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 "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (current case)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to maintain objectivity as a forensic expert witness and to resist the attorney's instruction to suppress adverse structural defect findings, recognizing that compliance with the confidentiality instruction constituted adoption of an advocacy role inconsistent with the engineer's non-advocate status in adversarial proceedings." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's client was the attorney and technically Engineer A had an obligation not to reveal facts, data or other information in a professional capacity without the prior consent of attorney." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon receipt of the attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality over the structural defect findings" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's client was the attorney and technically Engineer A had an obligation not to reveal facts, data or other information in a professional capacity without the prior consent of attorney.",
"However, there were valid reasons why Engineer A should have revealed the information directly to the tenants and public authorities.",
"in cases where the public health and safety is endangered, engineers not only have the right but also the ethical responsibility to reveal such facts to the proper persons." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 136 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T13:14:37.529619"^^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
2026-03-01T13:14:37.529619
Generated by
ProEthica Case 136 Extraction