Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary Acknowledged in Engineer A Analysis
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Absolute_Loyalty_Prohibition_Boundary_Acknowledged_in_Engineer_A_Analysis
Properties
Instance of
AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients
Applied to
Engineer A's argument that termination of the plaintiff-side engagement freed him to accept the defense-side engagement
Balancing with
Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Principle
Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Principle
Concrete expression
The Board acknowledged the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney — recognizing the principle that engineers are not bound by perpetual absolute loyalty to former clients — but distinguished this case because the ethical obligation persisted for the duration of the proceeding
Confidence
0.88
Importance
medium
Interpretation
The Board acknowledged the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition boundary (engineers are not perpetually bound to former clients) but held it inapplicable here because the proceeding-duration loyalty obligation had not yet expired — the principle defines the outer limit but not the minimum floor
Invoked by
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Tension resolution
The absolute loyalty prohibition boundary was acknowledged but distinguished — it does not apply to extinguish obligations that persist for the duration of the specific proceeding in which confidential access was granted
Source Evidence
Source text
It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
Text references
It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
TTL
@prefix case172: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#> .
@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#> .
case172:Absolute_Loyalty_Prohibition_Boundary_Acknowledged_in_Engineer_A_Analysis a proeth:AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary Acknowledged in Engineer A Analysis" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's argument that termination of the plaintiff-side engagement freed him to accept the defense-side engagement" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Principle",
"Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board acknowledged the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney — recognizing the principle that engineers are not bound by perpetual absolute loyalty to former clients — but distinguished this case because the ethical obligation persisted for the duration of the proceeding" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:interpretation "The Board acknowledged the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition boundary (engineers are not perpetually bound to former clients) but held it inapplicable here because the proceeding-duration loyalty obligation had not yet expired — the principle defines the outer limit but not the minimum floor" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides" ;
proeth:principleclass "Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients" ;
proeth:sourcetext "It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The absolute loyalty prohibition boundary was acknowledged but distinguished — it does not apply to extinguish obligations that persist for the duration of the specific proceeding in which confidential access was granted" ;
proeth:textreferences "It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.",
"we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.774205"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 172 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
172
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
First case
172
Generated
2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
Attributed to
Case 172 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:28:40.774205
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction