DP4

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

DP4

Does Engineer A's ethical obligation to decline the contractor's engagement extend to all capacities — including non-testifying consulting expert roles — or is the prohibition narrowly confined to the testifying expert witness function?

Engineer A must assess whether the ethical prohibition on adverse participation extends beyond the specific role of testifying expert witness to encompass any capacity in which Engineer A might serve the contractor — including as a non-testifying consulting expert. The contractor may argue that a purely consulting role, in which Engineer A does not testify and does not directly present government-acquired findings, avoids the switching-sides prohibition. Engineer A must determine whether the prohibition is role-specific or categorical.

Refuse to serve the contractor in any role — whether as testifying expert, non-testifying consulting expert, technical advisor, or reviewer — recognizing that the confidential forensic knowledge gained during the government engagement would inevitably inform any technical contribution Engineer A makes to the contractor's claim, regardless of the formal label attached to the engagement.

Decline the testifying expert witness role but accept a behind-the-scenes consulting engagement for the contractor, reasoning that the switching-sides prohibition applies specifically to adversarial testimony and that a consulting role in which Engineer A does not appear before a tribunal avoids the ethical violation.

Accept a narrowly scoped engagement limited to reviewing publicly available documents and published reports about the dam failure, reasoning that work confined to public information does not implicate the confidential government findings and therefore falls outside the scope of the prohibition.

Former Government Forensic Consultant Evaluating Scope of Adverse Participation Prohibition