Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
S · State
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Same-Proceeding_Cross-Side_Engagement_Absolute_Prohibition
Properties
Instance of
Same-ProceedingCross-SideEngagementProhibitionState
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Same-ProceedingCross-SideEngagementProhibitionState
Active period
From the moment Engineer A was approached by Attorney X through the conclusion of the legal proceeding
Affected parties
Attorney X
Attorney Z
Defendant
Engineer A
Plaintiff
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Subject
The absolute ethical prohibition on Engineer A providing services to the defendant in the same legal proceeding in which he had previously served the plaintiff, regardless of proposed mitigations
Terminated by
Conclusion of the legal proceeding
Triggering event
Attorney X's approach to retain Engineer A in the same proceeding where Engineer A had previously served the opposing party
Urgency level
high
Source Evidence
Source text
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
Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one'
the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
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:Same-Proceeding_Cross-Side_Engagement_Absolute_Prohibition a proeth:Same-ProceedingCross-SideEngagementProhibitionState,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition" ;
proeth:activeperiod "From the moment Engineer A was approached by Attorney X through the conclusion of the legal proceeding" ;
proeth:affectedparties "Attorney X",
"Attorney Z",
"Defendant",
"Engineer A",
"Plaintiff" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "State" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "172" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:sourcetext "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:stateclass "Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Prohibition State" ;
proeth:subject "The absolute ethical prohibition on Engineer A providing services to the defendant in the same legal proceeding in which he had previously served the plaintiff, regardless of proposed mitigations" ;
proeth:terminatedby "Conclusion of the legal proceeding" ;
proeth:textreferences "Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'",
"This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one'",
"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:triggeringevent "Attorney X's approach to retain Engineer A in the same proceeding where Engineer A had previously served the opposing party" ;
proeth:urgencylevel "high" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 172 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:28:40.764990"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 172 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
172
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
First case
172
Generated
2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
Attributed to
Case 172 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:28:40.764990
Generated by
ProEthica Case 172 Extraction