DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Should Engineer A proactively disclose to Attorney Z that his findings are adverse to the plaintiff and discuss the ethical implications before allowing the engagement to be passively terminated — and separately, should he recognize and refuse Attorney X's retention as motivated by exploitation of his prior confidential access rather than his general expertise?
Focus
Engineer A: Pre-Termination Disclosure Obligation and Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition
Option1
Proactively disclose to Attorney Z that findings are adverse to the plaintiff and discuss ethical implications before termination; subsequently refuse Attorney X's retention upon recognizing that it is motivated by exploitation of prior confidential access rather than independent expertise.
Option2
Allow the plaintiff-side engagement to dissolve without proactive disclosure of adverse findings, treating termination as a natural conclusion of the engagement, and accept Attorney X's retention on the basis that Engineer A's general forensic expertise — not insider access — is the operative basis for the new engagement.
Option3
Fulfill the pre-termination disclosure obligation by surfacing adverse findings to Attorney Z, but treat the subsequent defense retention question as a separate and independent evaluation — accepting Attorney X's retention if Engineer A concludes his analysis will be genuinely independent of plaintiff confidential information, without seeking former client consent.
Role
Engineer
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 proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A proactively disclose to Attorney Z that his findings are adverse to the plaintiff and discuss the ethical implications before allowing the engagement to be passively terminated — and separately, should he recognize and refuse Attorney X's retention as motivated by exploitation of his prior confidential access rather than his general expertise?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A: Pre-Termination Disclosure Obligation and Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition" ;
proeth:option1 "Proactively disclose to Attorney Z that findings are adverse to the plaintiff and discuss ethical implications before termination; subsequently refuse Attorney X's retention upon recognizing that it is motivated by exploitation of prior confidential access rather than independent expertise." ;
proeth:option2 "Allow the plaintiff-side engagement to dissolve without proactive disclosure of adverse findings, treating termination as a natural conclusion of the engagement, and accept Attorney X's retention on the basis that Engineer A's general forensic expertise — not insider access — is the operative basis for the new engagement." ;
proeth:option3 "Fulfill the pre-termination disclosure obligation by surfacing adverse findings to Attorney Z, but treat the subsequent defense retention question as a separate and independent evaluation — accepting Attorney X's retention if Engineer A concludes his analysis will be genuinely independent of plaintiff confidential information, without seeking former client consent." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:43:03.946211"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 172 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T18:43:03.946211
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction