Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Former_Client_Adversarial_Participation_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A
Properties
Instance of
FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
Applied to
Engineer A's retention by Attorney X to provide forensic analysis adverse to the plaintiff whose attorney had previously retained him
Balancing with
Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
Concrete expression
Engineer A, having gained specialized knowledge of the plaintiff's case through his prior retention, was prohibited from participating as a forensic expert for the defense in the same proceeding without the consent of the plaintiff — the former client whose confidential information he had accessed
Confidence
0.96
Importance
high
Interpretation
The Board applied BER Case 82-6 precedent establishing that an engineer who gains specialized knowledge on behalf of a client cannot subsequently represent adverse interests in the same matter without consent of all interested parties
Invoked by
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Tension resolution
The prohibition on adverse participation in the same proceeding where specialized knowledge was gained prevailed; the fact that Engineer A was no longer formally retained by plaintiff's attorney did not dissolve the obligation
Source Evidence
Source text
At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
Text references
At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
in BER Case 82-6, this Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the U.S. government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would be unethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam.
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 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:Former_Client_Adversarial_Participation_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A a proeth:FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's retention by Attorney X to provide forensic analysis adverse to the plaintiff whose attorney had previously retained him" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A, having gained specialized knowledge of the plaintiff's case through his prior retention, was prohibited from participating as a forensic expert for the defense in the same proceeding without the consent of the plaintiff — the former client whose confidential information he had accessed" ;
proeth:confidence "0.96" ;
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 Board applied BER Case 82-6 precedent establishing that an engineer who gains specialized knowledge on behalf of a client cannot subsequently represent adverse interests in the same matter without consent of all interested parties" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides" ;
proeth:principleclass "Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition" ;
proeth:sourcetext "At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The prohibition on adverse participation in the same proceeding where specialized knowledge was gained prevailed; the fact that Engineer A was no longer formally retained by plaintiff's attorney did not dissolve the obligation" ;
proeth:textreferences "At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.",
"in BER Case 82-6, this Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the U.S. government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would be unethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam.",
"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 "2026-03-01T18:28:40.765496"^^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
2026-03-01T18:28:40.765496
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction