DP5

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

DP5

Should Engineer A insist on attorney-initiated disclosure as a condition of continued engagement before resorting to withdrawal and independent notification, or should Engineer A immediately withdraw and independently notify tenants and public authorities upon receiving the confidentiality instruction?

Upon receiving the attorney's confidentiality instruction after reporting structural findings, Engineer A must decide whether to first insist — as a condition of continued engagement — that the attorney disclose the defects to the court or tenants, or to immediately withdraw and independently notify affected parties, or to comply and remain in the engagement. This decision point concerns the sequencing of ethically required responses and whether Engineer A exhausted intermediate remedies before the situation required unilateral disclosure.

Condition continued engagement on the attorney's agreement to disclose the structural defects to the court or tenants; if the attorney refuses, withdraw from the engagement and independently notify tenants and public authorities, following the BER 84-5 insistence-before-withdrawal sequence while ensuring affirmative public safety notification.

Withdraw from the expert witness engagement upon receiving the confidentiality instruction, treating withdrawal as a sufficient discharge of ethical obligations on the grounds that Engineer A's continued participation would constitute ongoing complicity, while leaving disclosure to the litigation process already underway.

Comply with the confidentiality instruction and remain in the engagement on the basis that the active tenant lawsuit will produce disclosure and remediation through the litigation process, and that Engineer A's unilateral notification would disrupt proceedings and exceed the scope of the forensic expert role.

Engineer