Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Divided Loyalty Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Engineer_A_Conflict_of_Interest_Avoidance_Divided_Loyalty_Violation
Properties
Instance of
ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateObjectivityinSettlementContextObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateObjectivityinSettlementContextObligation
Case context
The Board applied the divided loyalty analysis from BER Cases 76-3 and 74-2, finding that unlike permissible dual engagements where loyalties are not divided, Engineer A's sequential engagement on both sides of the same matter created an irreconcilable divided loyalty situation.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.87
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to avoid placing himself in a position of divided loyalty by accepting retention from both sides of the same adversarial proceeding, recognizing that his prior plaintiff-side engagement and his subsequent defense-side engagement created an irreconcilable conflict of interest.
Temporal scope
From the time of accepting defense retention
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Divided Loyalty Irreconcilability Invoked in Engineer A Dual-Party Context
Source Evidence
Source text
the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue.
Text references
Engineer A was doing more than offering his expertise in engineering matters as an aid to a fuller understanding by the county board; he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the county engineers.
the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue.
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-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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_Conflict_of_Interest_Avoidance_Divided_Loyalty_Violation a proeth:ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateObjectivityinSettlementContextObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Divided Loyalty Violation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case172:Engineer_A_Forensic_Expert_Witness_Objectivity_Correctly_Applied_Initial_Engagement ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Engineer_A_Conflict_of_Interest_—_Simultaneous_Opposing-Side_Obligations> ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case172:Engineer_A_Independent_Report_Pledge_Non-Cure_Violation ;
proeth:casecontext "The Board applied the divided loyalty analysis from BER Cases 76-3 and 74-2, finding that unlike permissible dual engagements where loyalties are not divided, Engineer A's sequential engagement on both sides of the same matter created an irreconcilable divided loyalty situation." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case172:Divided_Loyalty_Irreconcilability_Invoked_in_Engineer_A_Dual-Party_Context ;
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 "Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Settlement Context Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to avoid placing himself in a position of divided loyalty by accepting retention from both sides of the same adversarial proceeding, recognizing that his prior plaintiff-side engagement and his subsequent defense-side engagement created an irreconcilable conflict of interest." ;
proeth:sourcetext "the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue." ;
proeth:temporalscope "From the time of accepting defense retention" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A was doing more than offering his expertise in engineering matters as an aid to a fuller understanding by the county board; he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the county engineers.",
"the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.776213"^^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
2026-03-01T18:28:40.776213
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction