Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Triggered By Same-Matter Defense Engagement
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Former_Client_Adversarial_Participation_Prohibition_Triggered_By_Same-Matter_Defense_Engagement
Properties
Instance of
FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
Applied to
Personal injury litigation forensic engagement
Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
Balancing with
Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
Concrete expression
Engineer A, having gained specialized forensic knowledge about the personal injury case on behalf of the plaintiff's attorney (former client), accepted an engagement adverse to the plaintiff in the same proceeding without the consent of all interested parties
Confidence
0.96
Importance
high
Interpretation
The specialized knowledge acquired during the plaintiff-side engagement — including the technical findings, case documents, and analytical conclusions — constitutes 'particular specialized knowledge' sufficient to trigger the prohibition on adverse participation in the same matter
Invoked by
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Tension resolution
The prohibition is fully operative because the adverse engagement is in the same matter (not an unrelated matter), and no consent of all interested parties was obtained — the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition's exception for unrelated matters does not apply here
Source Evidence
Source text
He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
Text references
Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
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_Triggered_By_Same-Matter_Defense_Engagement a proeth:FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Triggered By Same-Matter Defense Engagement" ;
proeth:appliedto "Personal injury litigation forensic engagement",
"Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A, having gained specialized forensic knowledge about the personal injury case on behalf of the plaintiff's attorney (former client), accepted an engagement adverse to the plaintiff in the same proceeding without the consent of all interested parties" ;
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 "The specialized knowledge acquired during the plaintiff-side engagement — including the technical findings, case documents, and analytical conclusions — constitutes 'particular specialized knowledge' sufficient to trigger the prohibition on adverse participation in the same matter" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides" ;
proeth:principleclass "Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition" ;
proeth:sourcetext "He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The prohibition is fully operative because the adverse engagement is in the same matter (not an unrelated matter), and no consent of all interested parties was obtained — the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition's exception for unrelated matters does not apply here" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A agrees to provide the report.",
"Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.",
"Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.765987"^^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
2026-03-01T18:28:40.765987
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction