DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

How should Engineer A respond to opposing counsel's cross-examination challenge that frames her multi-party engagement history as improper side-switching analogous to attorney advocacy norms?

During cross-examination in the product liability matter, opposing counsel challenges Engineer A's credibility and professional integrity by implying that her sequential service to ABC Manufacturing and then against ABC Manufacturing constitutes improper side-switching analogous to an attorney changing sides — importing legal profession advocacy norms into the engineering ethics context. Engineer A must decide how to respond to this challenge while maintaining professional independence and objectivity.

Affirmatively and clearly assert that engineers serving as expert witnesses are not advocates, that no engineering equivalent of the plaintiff's bar or defense bar exists or should constrain professional independence, that each engagement was in an entirely unrelated matter, and that the switching-sides prohibition applicable to attorneys does not govern engineers rendering objective technical opinions — directly rebutting the legal profession analogy without capitulating to the implication of impropriety.

Acknowledge that the sequential engagement history creates an appearance of impropriety, concede that reasonable persons might perceive a conflict, and defer to the court's judgment about the weight to be given her testimony — effectively validating opposing counsel's framing and undermining the ethical permissibility of her engagements by treating appearance of conflict as equivalent to actual conflict.

Prior to cross-examination, proactively prepare and submit a written disclosure statement to the court and all parties documenting the complete multi-party engagement history, the unrelated nature of each matter, and the absence of shared confidential information — addressing the appearance-of-impropriety risk before opposing counsel can exploit it, rather than waiting to respond reactively under cross-examination.

Engineer A — Forensic Expert Witness Under Cross-Examination