DP7

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

DP7

Should Engineer A accept the defense-side retention by pledging to produce an independent engineering and safety analysis report, or decline the engagement because his prior confidential plaintiff-side engagement in the same active proceeding creates an irremediable structural conflict that no pledge of independence can cure?

Engineer A Independent Report Pledge as Non-Cure of Switching-Sides Violation: Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and having conducted confidential analysis pointing to plaintiff fault, is subsequently approached by defense attorney Attorney X — who specifically sought him out because of his prior plaintiff-side engagement — and must decide whether to accept the defense retention by pledging to produce an independent report, or to decline the engagement on structural conflict grounds.

Refuse the defense engagement entirely, informing Attorney X that the prior confidential plaintiff-side engagement in the same active proceeding creates an irremediable structural conflict that no pledge of independence or formal termination can cure, and that only former client consent — which has not been obtained — could permit participation.

Accept the defense retention on the basis that Engineer A's demonstrated objectivity — evidenced by his prior refusal to produce a false plaintiff report — combined with a formal pledge to conduct an entirely independent analysis, is sufficient to cure any structural conflict arising from the prior engagement, particularly given that his findings were adverse to the plaintiff rather than favorable.

Condition acceptance of the defense retention on obtaining explicit informed consent from the plaintiff or Attorney Z, disclosing to both the nature of Attorney X's approach and the scope of confidential information Engineer A retains, thereby satisfying the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition's consent-prerequisite mechanism before proceeding.

Engineer A