Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Engineer_A_Former_Client_Adversarial_Proceeding_Consent_Prerequisite_Violation
Properties
Instance of
FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteObligation
Case context
Engineer A accepted defense retention without obtaining consent from his former client (plaintiff/Attorney Z), in violation of Section III.4.b., which requires consent of former clients before participating in adversarial proceedings involving knowledge gained in prior engagements.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of the plaintiff and Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense in the same personal injury matter, given that he had gained specialized forensic knowledge of the plaintiff's case through his prior engagement.
Temporal scope
Before accepting retention by Attorney X
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
derivedFromPrinciple
Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
Source Evidence
Source text
there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor
Text references
At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard.
there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor
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_Former_Client_Adversarial_Proceeding_Consent_Prerequisite_Violation a proeth:FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case172:Engineer_A_Independent_Report_Pledge_Non-Cure_Violation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case172:Engineer_A_Cross-Side_Retention_by_Defendant_Attorney ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case172:Engineer_A_Termination_Non-Cure_of_Same-Matter_Adversarial_Conflict_Violation ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A accepted defense retention without obtaining consent from his former client (plaintiff/Attorney Z), in violation of Section III.4.b., which requires consent of former clients before participating in adversarial proceedings involving knowledge gained in prior engagements." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case172:Former_Client_Adversarial_Participation_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A ;
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 "Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of the plaintiff and Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense in the same personal injury matter, given that he had gained specialized forensic knowledge of the plaintiff's case through his prior engagement." ;
proeth:sourcetext "there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor" ;
proeth:temporalscope "Before accepting retention by Attorney X" ;
proeth:textreferences "At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.",
"Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard.",
"there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.774672"^^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
2026-03-01T18:28:40.774672
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction