Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Prohibition State
Class
1687210f
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Same-ProceedingCross-SideEngagementProhibitionState
Definition
State in which an engineer who has been retained by one party in an active legal or quasi-legal proceeding, and has thereby gained cooperative access to that party's confidential information, is subsequently approached to provide services for the opposing party in the same proceeding — creating an absolute ethical prohibition on accepting the cross-side engagement that cannot be resolved by terminating the prior relationship, offering a 'separate and independent' analysis, or relying on the engineer's subjective belief in their own impartiality.
Properties
Subclass of
Definition
State in which an engineer who has been retained by one party in an active legal or quasi-legal proceeding, and has thereby gained cooperative access to that party's confidential information, is subsequently approached to provide services for the opposing party in the same proceeding — creating an absolute ethical prohibition on accepting the cross-side engagement that cannot be resolved by terminating the prior relationship, offering a 'separate and independent' analysis, or relying on the engineer's subjective belief in their own impartiality.
Scope Note
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer, having been retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding and having gained access to that party's confidential documents, communications, and strategic information in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner, is subsequently approached by the opposing party to provide services in the same proceeding — creating a structural prohibition on accepting the cross-side retention because the engineer cannot credibly partition the confidential knowledge gained from the first party, and because the opposing party's motivation for retention is transparently linked to the engineer's prior access rather than independent professional merit.
Source Evidence
Source Text
the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
TTL
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proethica_intermediate_extended: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate-extended> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Same-ProceedingCross-SideEngagementProhibitionState> a owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Prohibition State" ;
rdfs:comment "State in which an engineer who has been retained by one party in an active legal or quasi-legal proceeding, and has thereby gained cooperative access to that party's confidential information, is subsequently approached to provide services for the opposing party in the same proceeding — creating an absolute ethical prohibition on accepting the cross-side engagement that cannot be resolved by terminating the prior relationship, offering a 'separate and independent' analysis, or relying on the engineer's subjective belief in their own impartiality." ;
rdfs:subClassOf <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#State> .
Metadata
Ontology
Type
Class
Content Hash
1687210fa2b4941d...Last Updated
2026-03-12 16:49
Extraction Provenance
Discovered in Case
172
Discovered In Pass
1
Discovered In Section
discussion
First Discovered At
2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
First Discovered In Case
172
Generated
2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
Was Attributed To
Case 172 Extraction