DP6

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

DP6

When a retained litigation expert's obligation to serve the client's interests appears to conflict with the professional obligation to produce a complete and non-selective report, how should the engineer resolve that tension — and does the adversarial context of the engagement alter the applicable standard?

Engineer B was retained by the municipality in an adversarial litigation context and produced a report that systematically excluded every available piece of evidence favorable to Engineer A — wave equation results, equipment failure, pile driving refusal data, and on-site witness testimony — raising the question of whether the Faithful Agent Obligation to the municipality and the Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation can be reconciled, and how a retained litigation expert should resolve that tension.

Produce a complete and non-selective report that includes all material findings — wave equation results, equipment failure, pile driving refusal data — regardless of whether those findings are adverse to the municipality's litigation position, serving the municipality's legitimate interest in a professionally defensible and credible technical assessment

Produce a report focused on the test pile program results within the contracted scope, disclose the scope limitation prominently, and recommend that the municipality commission a supplemental analysis addressing the pile driving records and wave equation methodology before relying on the report for litigation purposes

Decline the engagement on the grounds that the adversarial litigation context and the municipality's defined scope create irreconcilable pressure to produce a client-favorable rather than objectively complete report, and advise the municipality to retain an expert whose scope of work is defined broadly enough to permit complete and objective reporting

Engineer B Faithful Agent Municipality Report Completeness