Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer A In Plaintiff Engagement
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Forensic_Expert_Non-Advocate_Objectivity_Demonstrated_By_Engineer_A_In_Plaintiff_Engagement
Properties
Instance of
ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation
Applied to
Plaintiff-side forensic engineering and safety analysis
Balancing with
Client loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer A, upon completing his forensic review and analysis, determined that he could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff because the technical findings implicated the plaintiff rather than the defendant — demonstrating proper non-advocate objectivity in the initial engagement
Confidence
0.96
Importance
high
Interpretation
Engineer A's refusal to produce an advocacy-driven report for the plaintiff is the ethically correct application of the non-advocate principle — he followed the technical evidence to its correct conclusion regardless of the retaining party's interests; however, this same principle is then violated in spirit when he accepts the defense engagement, as his prior exposure makes truly independent analysis impossible
Invoked by
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Tension resolution
Non-advocate objectivity properly overrode client loyalty in the initial engagement; however, the subsequent defense engagement raises the question of whether 'independent and separate' analysis is achievable given prior exposure to plaintiff's confidential information
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
Text references
Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
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:Forensic_Expert_Non-Advocate_Objectivity_Demonstrated_By_Engineer_A_In_Plaintiff_Engagement a proeth:ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer A In Plaintiff Engagement" ;
proeth:appliedto "Plaintiff-side forensic engineering and safety analysis" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A, upon completing his forensic review and analysis, determined that he could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff because the technical findings implicated the plaintiff rather than the defendant — demonstrating proper non-advocate objectivity in the initial engagement" ;
proeth:confidence "0.96" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Engineer A's refusal to produce an advocacy-driven report for the plaintiff is the ethically correct application of the non-advocate principle — he followed the technical evidence to its correct conclusion regardless of the retaining party's interests; however, this same principle is then violated in spirit when he accepts the defense engagement, as his prior exposure makes truly independent analysis impossible" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides" ;
proeth:principleclass "Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Non-advocate objectivity properly overrode client loyalty in the initial engagement; however, the subsequent defense engagement raises the question of whether 'independent and separate' analysis is achievable given prior exposure to plaintiff's confidential information" ;
proeth:textreferences "Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.766135"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 172 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
172
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
First case
172
Generated
2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
Attributed to
Case 172 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:28:40.766135
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction