Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard-Instance
Rs · Resource
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard-Instance
Properties
Instance of
AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard
Confidence
0.91
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
Document title
Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
Importance
high
Used by
Engineer A and Attorney X when evaluating the propriety of the new engagement
Used in context
Governs Engineer A's duty to manage potential conflicts arising from prior engagement by opposing counsel in the same litigation, including limits on loyalty to former client Attorney Z and protection of confidential information gained during that engagement
Version
Current
Source Evidence
Source text
Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
Text references
Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
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:Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard-Instance a proeth:AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard-Instance" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:documenttitle "Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:resourceclass "Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report" ;
proeth:textreferences "Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report" ;
proeth:usedby "Engineer A and Attorney X when evaluating the propriety of the new engagement" ;
proeth:usedincontext "Governs Engineer A's duty to manage potential conflicts arising from prior engagement by opposing counsel in the same litigation, including limits on loyalty to former client Attorney Z and protection of confidential information gained during that engagement" ;
proeth:version "Current" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.759616"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 172 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
172
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
First case
172
Generated
2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
Attributed to
Case 172 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:28:40.759616
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction