Engineer A Non-Disclosure of Clover City Solicitation to ABC Prudential Assessment
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#Engineer_A_Non-Disclosure_of_Clover_City_Solicitation_to_ABC_Prudential_Assessment
Properties
Instance of
ClientSolicitationDepartureNon-DisclosurePrudentialWeighingObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ClientSolicitationDepartureNon-DisclosurePrudentialWeighingObligation
Case context
Unlike Engineers X, Y, and Z in Case 86-5 who disclosed the client's interest to their employer before resigning, Engineer A made no such disclosure to ABC before departing.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was not strictly required to disclose Clover City's solicitation to ABC before departing, but voluntary disclosure — as demonstrated by Engineers X, Y, and Z in Case 86-5 — would have been prudentially advisable; the BER found that non-disclosure was not particularly significant given that Engineer A's departure was independently motivated.
Temporal scope
During the period between Clover City's solicitation and Engineer A's formal departure from ABC
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
In Case No. 86-5, the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC
Text references
In Case No. 86-5, the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC
weighing all factors, the Board does not consider this to be particularly significant because (1) the engineers in Case No. 86-5 provided disclosure and did not seek consent or concurrence and (2) in the present case Engineer A's decision to depart from ABC and establish his own firm clearly appears to be motivated by factors independent from any relationship that Engineer A might be developing with Clover City
TTL
@prefix case178: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#> .
@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#> .
case178:Engineer_A_Non-Disclosure_of_Clover_City_Solicitation_to_ABC_Prudential_Assessment a proeth:ClientSolicitationDepartureNon-DisclosurePrudentialWeighingObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Non-Disclosure of Clover City Solicitation to ABC Prudential Assessment" ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case178:Engineer_A_Client-Suggested_Departure_Faithful_Agent_Non-Concealment_from_ABC ;
proeth:casecontext "Unlike Engineers X, Y, and Z in Case 86-5 who disclosed the client's interest to their employer before resigning, Engineer A made no such disclosure to ABC before departing." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case178:Prudential_Disclosure_Applied_to_Engineer_A_Non-Disclosure_of_Clover_City_Solicitation,
case178:Prudential_Disclosure_as_Relational_Self-Protection_Noted_for_Engineer_A_Non-Disclosure ;
proeth:discoveredincase "178" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T08:38:32.552396+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "178" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T08:38:32.552396+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Client Solicitation Departure Non-Disclosure Prudential Weighing Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was not strictly required to disclose Clover City's solicitation to ABC before departing, but voluntary disclosure — as demonstrated by Engineers X, Y, and Z in Case 86-5 — would have been prudentially advisable; the BER found that non-disclosure was not particularly significant given that Engineer A's departure was independently motivated." ;
proeth:sourcetext "In Case No. 86-5, the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the period between Clover City's solicitation and Engineer A's formal departure from ABC" ;
proeth:textreferences "In Case No. 86-5, the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC",
"weighing all factors, the Board does not consider this to be particularly significant because (1) the engineers in Case No. 86-5 provided disclosure and did not seek consent or concurrence and (2) in the present case Engineer A's decision to depart from ABC and establish his own firm clearly appears to be motivated by factors independent from any relationship that Engineer A might be developing with Clover City" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 178 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T08:48:26.021652"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 178 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
178
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T08:38:32.552396+00:00
First case
178
Generated
2026-03-01T08:38:32.552396+00:00
Attributed to
Case 178 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T08:48:26.021652
Generated by
ProEthica Case 178 Extraction