Firm B Engineers Pre-Departure Internal Discussion Non-Violation Recognition
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Firm_B_Engineers_Pre-Departure_Internal_Discussion_Non-Violation_Recognition
Properties
Instance of
Pre-DepartureInternalSolicitationDiscussionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Pre-DepartureInternalSolicitationDiscussionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
Case context
Four engineers discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting former clients while still employed by Engineer A, but did not make actual client contact or enter negotiations until after departure
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.88
Importance
medium
Obligated party
Four departing engineers of Firm B and ethics adjudicators
Obligation statement
The four engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients of Engineer A while still employed did not constitute a violation of the pre-departure promotional prohibition under a literal reading of the applicable code provision, because no actual promotional efforts or negotiations with clients occurred while they remained employed.
Temporal scope
During the period of employment with Engineer A, prior to departure
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Pre-Departure Promotional Prohibition Literal Boundary Applied to Firm B Engineers
Source Evidence
Source text
We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
Text references
We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
TTL
@prefix case168: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#> .
@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#> .
case168:Firm_B_Engineers_Pre-Departure_Internal_Discussion_Non-Violation_Recognition a proeth:Pre-DepartureInternalSolicitationDiscussionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Firm B Engineers Pre-Departure Internal Discussion Non-Violation Recognition" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case168:At-Will_Departure_Four_Engineers_Firm_B_Formation_Non-Ethical-Violation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case168:Four_Engineers_Pre-Departure_Solicitation_Planning_Without_Overt_Action ;
proeth:casecontext "Four engineers discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting former clients while still employed by Engineer A, but did not make actual client contact or enter negotiations until after departure" ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case168:Pre-Departure_Promotional_Prohibition_Literal_Boundary_Applied_to_Firm_B_Engineers ;
proeth:discoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Four departing engineers of Firm B and ethics adjudicators" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Pre-Departure Internal Solicitation Discussion Non-Violation Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The four engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients of Engineer A while still employed did not constitute a violation of the pre-departure promotional prohibition under a literal reading of the applicable code provision, because no actual promotional efforts or negotiations with clients occurred while they remained employed." ;
proeth:sourcetext "We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the period of employment with Engineer A, prior to departure" ;
proeth:textreferences "We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 168 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:59:28.930935"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 168 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
168
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
First case
168
Generated
2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
Attributed to
Case 168 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:59:28.930935
Generated by
ProEthica Case 168 Extraction