Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Engineer_A_Switching_Sides_Prohibition_Violation_Same_Personal_Injury_Matter
Properties
Instance of
SwitchingSidesForensicExpertProhibitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#SwitchingSidesForensicExpertProhibitionObligation
Case context
Engineer A was initially retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis. After determining he could not produce a plaintiff-favorable report and being terminated, he accepted retention by the defense attorney (Attorney X) in the same personal injury case.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.97
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury matter in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to the plaintiff's confidential documents, information, and cooperative analytical access during his prior engagement.
Temporal scope
From the moment Engineer A was approached by Attorney X through the duration of the proceeding
Relationships
competesWith
Engineer A Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement, Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
defeasibleUnder
Engineer A Cross-Side Retention in Active Litigation
derivedFromPrinciple
Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
Source Evidence
Source text
In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
Text references
His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.
In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard.
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_Switching_Sides_Prohibition_Violation_Same_Personal_Injury_Matter a proeth:SwitchingSidesForensicExpertProhibitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case172:Engineer_A_Forensic_Expert_Honesty_and_Integrity_Correctly_Applied_Initial_Engagement,
case172:Engineer_A_Independent_Report_Pledge_Non-Cure_Violation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case172:Engineer_A_Cross-Side_Retention_in_Active_Litigation ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case172:Engineer_A_Independent_Report_Pledge_Non-Cure_Violation ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A was initially retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis. After determining he could not produce a plaintiff-favorable report and being terminated, he accepted retention by the defense attorney (Attorney X) in the same personal injury case." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.97" ;
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 "Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury matter in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to the plaintiff's confidential documents, information, and cooperative analytical access during his prior engagement." ;
proeth:sourcetext "In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand." ;
proeth:temporalscope "From the moment Engineer A was approached by Attorney X through the duration of the proceeding" ;
proeth:textreferences "His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.",
"In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.",
"Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.774375"^^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
2026-03-01T18:28:40.774375
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction