Post-Engagement Termination Same-Matter Adverse Expert Witness Declination Engineer A Dam Failure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/170#Post-Engagement_Termination_Same-Matter_Adverse_Expert_Witness_Declination_Engineer_A_Dam_Failure
Properties
Instance of
Post-EngagementTerminationSame-MatterAdverseExpertWitnessDeclinationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Post-EngagementTerminationSame-MatterAdverseExpertWitnessDeclinationObligation
Case context
Engineer A was paid in full and formally released from the government engagement before accepting the contractor's retainer; under the pre-1981 code and Case 76-3 precedent, this termination might have been sufficient to permit adverse participation; however, the 1981 revision of Section III.4.b established a stricter standard applicable to Engineer A's conduct.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to decline the contractor's retainer as expert witness against the U.S. government in the dam failure claim, notwithstanding that Engineer A had been paid in full for his government services and was formally no longer under retainer, because the 1981 revision of NSPE Code Section III.4.b establishes that termination of the prior engagement does not extinguish the prohibition on adverse participation using specialized knowledge gained for the former client.
Temporal scope
Upon being approached by the contractor for retention as expert witness, after completion of the government engagement
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
Under the facts of this case, Engineer A was paid in full for his services to the government and apparently was no longer retained by the government and was free to oppose its position on behalf of an adverse party.
Text references
Given the unambiguous language of Case 76-3 noted above, it would appear that Engineer A could ethically represent the interests of the contractor as an expert witness in its claim against the government for additional compensation.
However, there is one important distinction between Case 76-3 and the case presented here.
Under the facts of this case, Engineer A was paid in full for his services to the government and apparently was no longer retained by the government and was free to oppose its position on behalf of an adverse party.
Under the revised Code section it is clear that Engineer A's action was in violation of Section III.4.b.
TTL
@prefix case170: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/170#> .
@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#> .
case170:Post-Engagement_Termination_Same-Matter_Adverse_Expert_Witness_Declination_Engineer_A_Dam_Failure a proeth:Post-EngagementTerminationSame-MatterAdverseExpertWitnessDeclinationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Post-Engagement Termination Same-Matter Adverse Expert Witness Declination Engineer A Dam Failure" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case170:Code_Revision_Prospective_Application_Adverse_Participation_Stricter_Standard_Engineer_A_Dam_Failure,
case170:Section_III.4.b_Specialized_Knowledge_Former_Client_Consent_Prerequisite_Engineer_A_Dam_Failure,
case170:Switching_Sides_Prohibition_Engineer_A_Dam_Failure_Government_to_Contractor ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case170:Sequential_Opposing-Party_Retention_in_Same_Dam_Failure_Investigative_Matter ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A was paid in full and formally released from the government engagement before accepting the contractor's retainer; under the pre-1981 code and Case 76-3 precedent, this termination might have been sufficient to permit adverse participation; however, the 1981 revision of Section III.4.b established a stricter standard applicable to Engineer A's conduct." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case170:Former_Client_Adversarial_Participation_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A_Under_Section_III.4.b ;
proeth:discoveredincase "170" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T21:08:58.404135+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "170" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T21:08:58.404135+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Post-Engagement Termination Same-Matter Adverse Expert Witness Declination Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to decline the contractor's retainer as expert witness against the U.S. government in the dam failure claim, notwithstanding that Engineer A had been paid in full for his government services and was formally no longer under retainer, because the 1981 revision of NSPE Code Section III.4.b establishes that termination of the prior engagement does not extinguish the prohibition on adverse participation using specialized knowledge gained for the former client." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Under the facts of this case, Engineer A was paid in full for his services to the government and apparently was no longer retained by the government and was free to oppose its position on behalf of an adverse party." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon being approached by the contractor for retention as expert witness, after completion of the government engagement" ;
proeth:textreferences "Given the unambiguous language of Case 76-3 noted above, it would appear that Engineer A could ethically represent the interests of the contractor as an expert witness in its claim against the government for additional compensation.",
"However, there is one important distinction between Case 76-3 and the case presented here.",
"Under the facts of this case, Engineer A was paid in full for his services to the government and apparently was no longer retained by the government and was free to oppose its position on behalf of an adverse party.",
"Under the revised Code section it is clear that Engineer A's action was in violation of Section III.4.b." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 170 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T21:17:58.666817"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 170 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
170
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T21:08:58.404135+00:00
First case
170
Generated
2026-03-01T21:08:58.404135+00:00
Attributed to
Case 170 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T21:17:58.666817
Generated by
ProEthica Case 170 Extraction