DP2

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

DP2

Does Engineer A's professional stamp on the water-rights analysis create a continuing obligation to defend, clarify, or correct that document during the remaining steps of the court proceeding, and if so, how can that accountability obligation be discharged without violating the prohibition on adversarial participation against the former client?

Engineer A's Ongoing Professional Accountability for the Stamped Water-Rights Analysis in an Active Adversarial Proceeding

Accept isolation from the proceeding while preserving a narrow, non-adversarial accountability channel — remaining available to respond to direct requests from the court or the former client regarding the stamped analysis, and communicating any identified material errors directly to the former private firm or through a neutral court-directed mechanism rather than through the State's litigation team

Treat the co-stamping engineer at the private firm as the sole accountable professional for the document going forward, declining all engagement with the stamped analysis on the grounds that the cross-side employment transition and isolation protocol together suspend Engineer A's accountability obligations for the duration of the active proceeding, with those obligations reviving only after the proceeding concludes

Proactively notify the court of Engineer A's recusal status and the existence of the co-stamping engineer, and offer to provide technical clarification of the stamped analysis to any party — including the State — under court supervision, on the theory that court-supervised neutral technical engagement with one's own stamped work product is categorically distinct from adversarial participation and satisfies both the accountability obligation and the objectivity standard

Engineer A