Case-by-Case Pertinence Assessment Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Case-by-Case_Pertinence_Assessment_Distinguishing_BER_83-1_from_Present_Case
Properties
Instance of
Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
Case context
The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 83-1, identifying the material factual distinction that Engineer A was highlighted as a key employee while Engineer X was not, and that hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's work.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer Z and Firm Y (and ethics adjudicators)
Obligation statement
Engineer Z, Firm Y, and the ethics Board were obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts — including key-employee status, significance of practice area, and intent — rather than applying a categorical rule derived from BER 83-1, resulting in a principled distinction between the two cases.
Temporal scope
At the time of ethics review and adjudication
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Three-Party Interest Balancing on Engineer X Departure
derivedFromPrinciple
Comparative Case Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case
Source Evidence
Source text
Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
Text references
However, under the facts of the instant case, there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
In the BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm.
Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
TTL
@prefix case174: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case174:Case-by-Case_Pertinence_Assessment_Distinguishing_BER_83-1_from_Present_Case a proeth:Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Case-by-Case Pertinence Assessment Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case174:Three-Party_Interest_Balancing_on_Engineer_X_Departure ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case174:Key_Employee_Brochure_Listing_Violation_by_Engineer_B_in_BER_83-1 ;
proeth:casecontext "The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 83-1, identifying the material factual distinction that Engineer A was highlighted as a key employee while Engineer X was not, and that hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's work." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case174:Comparative_Case_Distinguishing_BER_83-1_from_Present_Case ;
proeth:discoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer Z and Firm Y (and ethics adjudicators)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer Z, Firm Y, and the ethics Board were obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts — including key-employee status, significance of practice area, and intent — rather than applying a categorical rule derived from BER 83-1, resulting in a principled distinction between the two cases." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of ethics review and adjudication" ;
proeth:textreferences "However, under the facts of the instant case, there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.",
"In the BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm.",
"Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 174 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:34:10.128546"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 174 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
174
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
First case
174
Generated
2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
Attributed to
Case 174 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T12:34:10.128546
Generated by
ProEthica Case 174 Extraction