Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Applied to Firm B
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Former-Client_Solicitation_Without_Active-Contract_Supplanting_Permissibility_Applied_to_Firm_B
Properties
Instance of
Former-ClientSolicitationWithoutActive-ContractSupplantingPermissibilityPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Former-ClientSolicitationWithoutActive-ContractSupplantingPermissibilityPrinciple
Applied to
Former clients of Firm A with projects under discussion but no active contract or formal selection
Balancing with
Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period as Ethical Transition Practice
Concrete expression
Firm B's solicitation of former clients of Firm A who had projects under discussion but for whom specific selection or negotiation had not taken place does not constitute impermissible supplanting, because the supplanting prohibition applies only where a client has formally engaged or is in active negotiation with an incumbent engineer
Confidence
0.89
Importance
high
Interpretation
The ethical line between permissible competitive solicitation and impermissible supplanting is drawn at the point of formal engagement or active negotiation; clients who have not crossed that threshold are legitimate targets of competitive solicitation by departing engineers
Invoked by
Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
Tension resolution
The supplanting allegation by Engineer A fails with respect to clients who had no active contract; it may have merit with respect to clients where specialized knowledge was involved or where active negotiation had begun
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 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:Former-Client_Solicitation_Without_Active-Contract_Supplanting_Permissibility_Applied_to_Firm_B a proeth:Former-ClientSolicitationWithoutActive-ContractSupplantingPermissibilityPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Applied to Firm B" ;
proeth:appliedto "Former clients of Firm A with projects under discussion but no active contract or formal selection" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition",
"Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period as Ethical Transition Practice" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Firm B's solicitation of former clients of Firm A who had projects under discussion but for whom specific selection or negotiation had not taken place does not constitute impermissible supplanting, because the supplanting prohibition applies only where a client has formally engaged or is in active negotiation with an incumbent engineer" ;
proeth:confidence "0.89" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The ethical line between permissible competitive solicitation and impermissible supplanting is drawn at the point of formal engagement or active negotiation; clients who have not crossed that threshold are legitimate targets of competitive solicitation by departing engineers" ;
proeth:invokedby "Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals" ;
proeth:principleclass "Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Principle" ;
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:tensionresolution "The supplanting allegation by Engineer A fails with respect to clients who had no active contract; it may have merit with respect to clients where specialized knowledge was involved or where active negotiation had begun" ;
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 "2026-03-02T02:59:28.922034"^^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
2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
First case
168
Generated
2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
Attributed to
Case 168 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:59:28.922034
Generated by
ProEthica Case 168 Extraction