Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Affirmed for Engineer A
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Forensic_Expert_Non-Advocate_Status_Affirmed_for_Engineer_A
Properties
Instance of
ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation
Applied to
Engineer A's forensic engineering and safety analysis role in the personal injury litigation
Balancing with
Confidentiality Principle
Loyalty
Concrete expression
The Board affirmed that Engineer A's role as a forensic expert was not to advocate for the retaining attorney's client but to provide objective technical analysis — praising his initial conduct of producing an adverse report and condemning his subsequent acceptance of the opposing party's retention as incompatible with independent forensic analysis
Confidence
0.94
Importance
high
Interpretation
The non-advocate principle cuts in two directions here: it validates Engineer A's initial objectivity (producing an adverse report) and simultaneously condemns his switching sides (because the defense attorney's motivation was to obtain a favorable report, not independent analysis)
Invoked by
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Tension resolution
The non-advocate principle reinforces that the defense attorney's expectation of a favorable report from Engineer A was itself ethically problematic, and Engineer A's awareness of that expectation compounded his ethical violation
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.
We make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'
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:Forensic_Expert_Non-Advocate_Status_Affirmed_for_Engineer_A a proeth:ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Affirmed for Engineer A" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's forensic engineering and safety analysis role in the personal injury litigation" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Confidentiality Principle",
"Loyalty" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board affirmed that Engineer A's role as a forensic expert was not to advocate for the retaining attorney's client but to provide objective technical analysis — praising his initial conduct of producing an adverse report and condemning his subsequent acceptance of the opposing party's retention as incompatible with independent forensic analysis" ;
proeth:confidence "0.94" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The non-advocate principle cuts in two directions here: it validates Engineer A's initial objectivity (producing an adverse report) and simultaneously condemns his switching sides (because the defense attorney's motivation was to obtain a favorable report, not independent analysis)" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides" ;
proeth:principleclass "Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation" ;
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:tensionresolution "The non-advocate principle reinforces that the defense attorney's expectation of a favorable report from Engineer A was itself ethically problematic, and Engineer A's awareness of that expectation compounded his ethical violation" ;
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.",
"We make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'",
"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 "2026-03-01T18:28:40.773137"^^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
2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
First case
172
Generated
2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
Attributed to
Case 172 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:28:40.773137
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction