Firm B Non-Supplanting Permissibility Former Client Solicitation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Firm_B_Non-Supplanting_Permissibility_Former_Client_Solicitation
Properties
Instance of
Post-EmploymentFormerEmployerClientCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Post-EmploymentFormerEmployerClientCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
Case context
Four engineers departed Firm A and formed Firm B, then solicited former clients of Firm A including those with projects under discussion but no specific selection or negotiation underway.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Obligated party
Firm B (four departing engineers)
Obligation statement
Firm B was obligated to recognize that soliciting former clients of Firm A for whom no active contract or specific selection/negotiation was underway was ethically permissible and did not constitute improper supplanting, provided solicitation was conducted honestly and without disparagement.
Temporal scope
At the time of solicitation contact with former clients of Firm A
Relationships
competesWith
Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Both Parties Violation, Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Project Competition Constraint
Source Evidence
Source text
Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
Text references
Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
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_Non-Supplanting_Permissibility_Former_Client_Solicitation a proeth:Post-EmploymentFormerEmployerClientCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityBoundaryObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Firm B Non-Supplanting Permissibility Former Client Solicitation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case168:Competitive_Solicitation_Honest_Non-Disparaging_Communication_Both_Parties_Violation,
case168:Firm_B_Specialized_Knowledge_Former_Client_Project_Competition_Constraint ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case168:Firm_B_Pre-Award_Client_Solicitation_Without_Supplanting_Violation,
case168:Firm_B_Specialized_Project_Knowledge_Solicitation_Restriction ;
proeth:casecontext "Four engineers departed Firm A and formed Firm B, then solicited former clients of Firm A including those with projects under discussion but no specific selection or negotiation underway." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case168:Former-Client_Solicitation_Without_Active-Contract_Supplanting_Permissibility_Applied_to_Firm_B,
case168:Free_and_Open_Competition_Boundary_Invoked_to_Permit_Firm_B_Client_Solicitation ;
proeth:discoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Firm B (four departing engineers)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Post-Employment Former Employer Client Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Boundary Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Firm B was obligated to recognize that soliciting former clients of Firm A for whom no active contract or specific selection/negotiation was underway was ethically permissible and did not constitute improper supplanting, provided solicitation was conducted honestly and without disparagement." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of solicitation contact with former clients of Firm A" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.",
"Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 168 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:59:28.922660"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 168 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
168
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
First case
168
Generated
2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
Attributed to
Case 168 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:59:28.922660
Generated by
ProEthica Case 168 Extraction