DP1
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#DP1
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP1
Decision question
Should Engineer A comply with the attorney's confidentiality instruction and suppress the structural safety findings, or should Engineer A disclose the imminent structural danger directly to the tenants and public authorities notwithstanding the attorney's instruction?
Focus
Engineer A, retained as a forensic expert witness by the building owner's attorney, discovers structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety. The attorney instructs Engineer A to maintain confidentiality over these findings as part of active litigation. Engineer A must decide whether to comply with the attorney's confidentiality instruction or to disclose the imminent danger to tenants and public authorities, invoking the NSPE Code's Section II.1.c. public safety exception.
Option1
Invoke the NSPE Code's Section II.1.c. public safety exception and directly notify the tenants and appropriate public authorities of the imminent structural danger, notwithstanding the attorney's confidentiality instruction, on the ground that the paramount public welfare obligation supersedes any litigation-strategy confidentiality claim.
Option2
Treat the attorney's assertion of legal confidentiality as a binding professional constraint, defer to the attorney's legal expertise regarding the scope of privilege applicable to retained experts, and refrain from independent disclosure pending resolution of the litigation — on the ground that an engineer operating within a legal proceeding should not unilaterally override the directing attorney's legal judgment.
Option3
Rather than disclosing directly to tenants or unilaterally to public authorities, seek leave to notify the presiding court — through independent counsel if necessary — of the existence of imminent safety-critical findings bearing on the physical welfare of building occupants, placing the disclosure decision within the judicial system's authority and avoiding direct breach of litigation confidentiality norms while still discharging the public safety obligation.
Role
Engineer A
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-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A comply with the attorney's confidentiality instruction and suppress the structural safety findings, or should Engineer A disclose the imminent structural danger directly to the tenants and public authorities notwithstanding the attorney's instruction?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A, retained as a forensic expert witness by the building owner's attorney, discovers structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety. The attorney instructs Engineer A to maintain confidentiality over these findings as part of active litigation. Engineer A must decide whether to comply with the attorney's confidentiality instruction or to disclose the imminent danger to tenants and public authorities, invoking the NSPE Code's Section II.1.c. public safety exception." ;
proeth:option1 "Invoke the NSPE Code's Section II.1.c. public safety exception and directly notify the tenants and appropriate public authorities of the imminent structural danger, notwithstanding the attorney's confidentiality instruction, on the ground that the paramount public welfare obligation supersedes any litigation-strategy confidentiality claim." ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the attorney's assertion of legal confidentiality as a binding professional constraint, defer to the attorney's legal expertise regarding the scope of privilege applicable to retained experts, and refrain from independent disclosure pending resolution of the litigation — on the ground that an engineer operating within a legal proceeding should not unilaterally override the directing attorney's legal judgment." ;
proeth:option3 "Rather than disclosing directly to tenants or unilaterally to public authorities, seek leave to notify the presiding court — through independent counsel if necessary — of the existence of imminent safety-critical findings bearing on the physical welfare of building occupants, placing the disclosure decision within the judicial system's authority and avoiding direct breach of litigation confidentiality norms while still discharging the public safety obligation." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T13:28:58.791764"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 136 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T13:28:58.791764
Generated by
ProEthica Case 136 Extraction