DP3

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

DP3

Should Engineer A treat the attorney's confidentiality instruction as legally and ethically binding on his independent professional obligations as a licensed forensic expert, or should Engineer A recognize that the attorney's instruction is ultra vires with respect to his licensure-grounded public safety duties and resist compliance on that basis?

Engineer A, a licensed forensic expert witness retained by the building owner's attorney in active tenant litigation, must determine whether the attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality over structural safety findings is legally and ethically binding on his independent professional obligations — and whether Engineer A bore a pre-compliance duty to clarify the scope and limits of confidentiality before accepting the forensic engagement. This decision point concerns Engineer A's role identity as a non-advocate forensic expert and whether the attorney had any professional authority to override Engineer A's licensure-grounded public safety obligations.

Recognize that the attorney's confidentiality instruction is legally and ethically ultra vires with respect to Engineer A's licensure-grounded public safety obligations, refuse to treat it as binding on independent professional duties, and proceed to discharge the public safety obligation through disclosure to tenants and public authorities — on the ground that attorney-client privilege does not extend to override a retained expert's professional code obligations.

Treat the attorney's assertion of legal confidentiality as a plausible and authoritative legal claim that Engineer A — as a non-lawyer — is not professionally equipped to independently refute, comply with the instruction in good-faith reliance on the attorney's legal expertise, and document the reliance as a mitigating factor — on the ground that an engineer operating within a legal proceeding should not substitute independent legal judgment for that of a licensed attorney directing the engagement.

Before either complying with or resisting the attorney's confidentiality instruction, retain independent legal counsel to assess whether the attorney's claim of privilege legally extends to Engineer A's professional obligations as a forensic expert — thereby making an informed decision about the instruction's legal validity rather than either uncritically deferring to the retaining attorney or unilaterally overriding a potentially legitimate legal constraint.

Engineer A