BER-62-7 County Commission Engineer Divided Loyalty Recognition
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#BER-62-7_County_Commission_Engineer_Divided_Loyalty_Recognition
Properties
Instance of
Multi-HatDual-ClientAdequateRepresentationImpossibilityRecognitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Multi-HatDual-ClientAdequateRepresentationImpossibilityRecognitionObligation
Case context
BER Case 62-7: Engineer simultaneously served commission and developer in matters where their interests were potentially opposing, including contract negotiations between the two parties.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Obligated party
County commission engineering consultant (BER 62-7)
Obligation statement
The county commission engineering consultant was obligated to recognize that simultaneously serving the commission (whose interests included objective plan approval) and the private developer (whose interests included favorable plan approval) created an irreconcilable division of loyalty that made adequate representation of both clients impossible.
Temporal scope
At the time of accepting the dual engagement
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
BER Case 62-7 County Commission Engineer Dual-Role Conflict
derivedFromPrinciple
Divided Loyalty Irreconcilability Invoked in BER 62-7 County Commission Engineer
Source Evidence
Source text
Even if the engineer acted with the best of intentions, he was put into the position of assessing his recommendations to two clients with possibly opposing interests.
Text references
Even if the engineer acted with the best of intentions, he was put into the position of assessing his recommendations to two clients with possibly opposing interests.
This obviously involved the self interest of the engineer and divided his loyalties.
TTL
@prefix case177: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#> .
@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#> .
case177:BER-62-7_County_Commission_Engineer_Divided_Loyalty_Recognition a proeth:Multi-HatDual-ClientAdequateRepresentationImpossibilityRecognitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER-62-7 County Commission Engineer Divided Loyalty Recognition" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case177:BER-62-7_County_Commission_Engineer_Conflict_of_Interest_Non-Engagement ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case177:BER_Case_62-7_County_Commission_Engineer_Dual-Role_Conflict ;
proeth:casecontext "BER Case 62-7: Engineer simultaneously served commission and developer in matters where their interests were potentially opposing, including contract negotiations between the two parties." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case177:Divided_Loyalty_Irreconcilability_Invoked_in_BER_62-7_County_Commission_Engineer ;
proeth:discoveredincase "177" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T09:23:17.458159+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "177" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T09:23:17.458159+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "County commission engineering consultant (BER 62-7)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Multi-Hat Dual-Client Adequate Representation Impossibility Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The county commission engineering consultant was obligated to recognize that simultaneously serving the commission (whose interests included objective plan approval) and the private developer (whose interests included favorable plan approval) created an irreconcilable division of loyalty that made adequate representation of both clients impossible." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Even if the engineer acted with the best of intentions, he was put into the position of assessing his recommendations to two clients with possibly opposing interests." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of accepting the dual engagement" ;
proeth:textreferences "Even if the engineer acted with the best of intentions, he was put into the position of assessing his recommendations to two clients with possibly opposing interests.",
"This obviously involved the self interest of the engineer and divided his loyalties." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 177 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:35:05.780295"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 177 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
177
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T09:23:17.458159+00:00
First case
177
Generated
2026-03-01T09:23:17.458159+00:00
Attributed to
Case 177 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T09:35:05.780295
Generated by
ProEthica Case 177 Extraction