Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Engineer_A_Adversarial_Retention_Motivation_Awareness_Obligation_Violation
Properties
Instance of
AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation
Case context
Attorney X sought to retain Engineer A knowing of his prior termination by plaintiff's attorney. The Board found that Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events, and that even subjective naivety would not excuse his acceptance.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining him was his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a favorable defense report, and to decline the retention on that basis.
Temporal scope
At the time of being approached by Attorney X
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
Source Evidence
Source text
It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
Text references
Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, we believe that this would not excuse his actions.
It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
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:Engineer_A_Adversarial_Retention_Motivation_Awareness_Obligation_Violation a proeth:AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation Violation" ;
proeth:casecontext "Attorney X sought to retain Engineer A knowing of his prior termination by plaintiff's attorney. The Board found that Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events, and that even subjective naivety would not excuse his acceptance." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case172:Switching_Sides_Prohibition_Violated_By_Engineer_A_Accepting_Defense_Retention ;
proeth:discoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining him was his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a favorable defense report, and to decline the retention on that basis." ;
proeth:sourcetext "It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of being approached by Attorney X" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.",
"Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, we believe that this would not excuse his actions.",
"It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.775095"^^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
2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
First case
172
Generated
2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
Attributed to
Case 172 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:28:40.775095
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction