Creating ongoing tension between her duty to her new employer and her residual confidentiality obligations to Company X
Placing herself in a position where she holds competitively valuable information about Company Y's direct competitor
Potential appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest regardless of her actual conduct
Legitimate exercise of professional mobility rights
Pursuit of career advancement consistent with engineering competence
Duty to serve as faithful agent and trustee to new employer without compromising obligations to former indirect clients
Engineer's right to professional mobility
Obligation to avoid circumstances that could appear to influence professional judgment
Advance her engineering career by joining a private-sector company in the same industry domain she gained expertise in through government work
Ability to perform engineering work at Company Y without drawing on Company X's confidential information
Awareness of the boundary between general expertise developed through government work and specific confidential knowledge about Company X
Ethical self-regulation and ongoing judgment about what information may or may not be disclosed
Immediately following resignation from government agency
Engineer A makes the affirmative decision to accept an engineering position with Company Y, knowing it is a direct competitor of Company X, whose confidential and proprietary design information she accessed during her government tenure. This is the central ethical decision of the case.
Accept Retention by Defendant's Attorney (BER 85-4)
forensic engineer, BER Case 85-4 reference
Effective use of the plaintiff's litigation vulnerability (revealed by his inability to provide a favorable report) to benefit the opposing party
Exploitation of confidential information and case knowledge gained during the plaintiff engagement
Violation of residual confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the plaintiff's attorney as former client
Avoidance of conflicts of interest and their appearance
Confidentiality of information gained in professional relationships
Faithful agency and trusteeship to former client
Honesty about the limits of one's ability to provide independent analysis given prior involvement
Accept a new professional engagement to provide an engineering report for the defendant, framed as a separate and independent analysis
Ability to recognize when claimed independence is not credible given prior involvement
Ethical judgment to decline engagements that exploit former client's confidential information
Recognition of conflict of interest arising from sequential adverse engagements in the same matter
Historical reference case, following termination of first engagement
Duty not to exploit information gained in confidence during prior engagement
Duty to fully discuss the ethical conflict with the former client before proceeding
NSPE Code Section II.4.b, obligation to avoid conflicts of interest
Obligation to avoid circumstances that could appear to improperly influence professional judgment
Residual confidentiality obligation to former client (plaintiff's attorney)
In the historical reference case BER 85-4, after being terminated by the plaintiff's attorney, the forensic engineer agreed to provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant's attorney in the same case. The BER deemed this decision unethical.
Accept Retention by Opposing Party (BER 82-6)
Direct conflict between knowledge and duties gained from government engagement and obligations to new contractor client
Exploitation of confidential information and access gained through government retention to benefit an adverse party
Confidentiality of former client information
Accept new professional engagement with the contractor, presumably for compensation and professional work, without apparent recognition that it directly conflicted with obligations to the former government client
Ethical judgment to decline engagements that compromise former client obligations
Recognition of conflict of interest arising from sequential adverse engagements
Historical reference case, cited in discussion section
Duty of faithful agency and trusteeship to former government client
NSPE Code Section III.4.b, obligation not to accept employment adverse to former client without consent
Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest arising from prior professional relationships
In the historical reference case BER 82-6, an engineer retained by the US government to study a dam failure accepted a subsequent retention by the contractor who had filed a claim against the government for additional compensation. The BER deemed this decision unethical.
Accept Retention by Opposing Party (BER 82-6) (Action 5) → Engineer Retained By Opposing Party (BER 82-6) (Event 5)
In the historical reference case BER 82-6, an engineer retained by the US government to study a dam subsequently accepted retention by the opposing party in related litigation, directly creating the conflict of interest scenario that the BER was called upon to evaluate
Accept Retention by Opposing Party (BER 82-6) (Action 5)
Had the engineer declined retention by the opposing party or obtained informed consent from the government, the ethical conflict central to BER 82-6 would not have arisen; the BER precedent would not have been established in this form
Engineer Retained By Opposing Party (BER 82-6) (Event 5)
Absence of consent from the original retaining party
Engineer's affirmative decision to accept the opposing retention
Existence of an opposing party with adverse interests in the same matter
Prior retention by and exposure to confidential information from the first party (US government)
Prior confidential retention + adverse party retention + no consent = sufficient to constitute the ethical conflict evaluated in BER 82-6
Accumulation of competitively sensitive knowledge about multiple companies that could create future conflicts of interest
Creation of lasting confidentiality obligations that would survive her employment
Duty to facilitate fair regulatory review of all submitting companies
Duty to perform official government agency responsibilities
Duty to serve as faithful agent and trustee to the regulatory body
Confidentiality of client and employer information
Public interest and fair regulatory process
Fulfill official regulatory duties by reviewing and processing company design submissions for facility approval
Ability to handle and safeguard confidential technical documentation
Engineering judgment to evaluate facility designs
Knowledge of regulatory standards and approval processes
Engineer A actively receives and handles confidential and proprietary design information submitted by Company X and other companies during her tenure at the government agency. This represents an ongoing, role-sanctioned decision to engage with sensitive third-party information in her official regulatory capacity.
Access Confidential Design Information (Action 1) → Confidential Knowledge Accumulated (Event 1)
Through repeated exposure to proprietary design submissions from Company X and other firms, Engineer A accumulated confidential knowledge as a direct consequence of actively receiving and handling that information in her government role
Access Confidential Design Information (Action 1)
Without Engineer A's active receipt and handling of confidential submissions, the proprietary knowledge would not have been internalized; had she been assigned to non-confidential review functions, the conflict would not have arisen
Confidential Knowledge Accumulated (Event 1)
Absence of compartmentalization preventing knowledge accumulation
Engineer A's active role in receiving and handling submissions
Nature of government agency role providing access to competitor submissions
Repeated exposure to proprietary design data over time
Combination of official access authority + repeated exposure + proprietary content + no knowledge barriers = inevitable accumulation of confidential knowledge
Professional engineering ethics bodies and BER precedent
Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
Ethics reviewers drawing analogical reasoning from adversarial conflict standards to the regulatory-to-competitor employment scenario
Provides analogical guidance on the prohibition against representing adverse interests — here, working for Company Y in a competitive context against Company X — when confidential information was obtained from Company X in a prior professional relationship
{'role': "Defendant's attorney", 'matter': 'Personal injury litigation'}
Learned of Engineer A's termination by plaintiff's counsel and sought to retain Engineer A to provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant. The BER found the real reason for the retention was the belief that Engineer A would provide a favorable report, and that Engineer A's acceptance was unethical.
{'type': 'adverse_party_counsel', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff Counsel Client'}
{'type': 'retained_expert', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learned of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and sought to retain Engineer A
the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineer A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client
{'role': "Plaintiff's attorney", 'matter': 'Personal injury litigation'}
Retained Engineer A to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case; terminated Engineer A's services after Engineer A determined findings would be unfavorable to the plaintiff; paid Engineer A's fee in full.
{'type': 'adverse_party_counsel', 'target': 'Attorney X Defendant Counsel Client'}
Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
Engineer A, a forensic engineer, was hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff
Engineer A's services were terminated and his fee was paid in full
BER 82-6 Dam Failure Engineer Switching Sides Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition
Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response Capability
The engineer retained by the US government to study dam failure causes was required to recognize that the contractor's motivation for seeking retention was to obtain favorable testimony in its claim against the government, and to decline the engagement absent government consent.
BER Case 82-6: Engineer retained by US government to study dam failure causes; contractor filed claim against government and sought to retain same engineer.
The BER's ruling that it would not be ethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor without consent of the former client (US government), citing NSPE Code Section III.4.b.
BER 82-6 Engineer (US Government Dam Failure)
In BER Case No. 82-6, the Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the US government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would not be ethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam.
nothing in the record indicated that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the US government, to represent the interests of the contractor in its claim against the government for additional compensation.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 74-2
In BER Case No. 74-2, the Board held that a part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities. The Board noted, under the facts, that the engineer's loyalties were not divided.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in current case analysis
Cited as precedent establishing that part-time consultant arrangements with municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities, where loyalties were not divided
BER Case No. 74-2 before BER Case No. 82-6
Case numbers imply chronological order: 74-2 (circa 1974) precedes 82-6 (circa 1982), as referenced sequentially in the Discussion section.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 82-6
Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer retained by the US government to study dam failure causes could not ethically agree to be retained by the contractor who filed a claim against the government, absent consent of the former client
BER Case No. 82-6 before BER Case No. 85-4
Case numbers imply chronological order: 82-6 (circa 1982) precedes 85-4 (circa 1985), as referenced sequentially in the Discussion section.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 85-4
In another BER case, Case No. 85-4, Engineer A, a forensic engineer, was hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical, the Board noted that the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
Cited as precedent establishing that a forensic engineer who was retained by plaintiff's counsel and then terminated could not ethically switch sides to provide a report for the defendant's counsel, because the engineer had access to confidential information from the plaintiff and could not be considered truly independent
BER Case No. 85-4 before current Engineer A case
The aforementioned cases represent the longstanding BER positions... Shifting to the facts in the current case, it is the Board's view that while many of the considerations discussed in the previous cases are relevant to this case...
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Confidentiality and Post-Employment Obligations
Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
Ethics reviewers conducting analogical analysis of Engineer A's situation
Provides analogical reasoning patterns from prior BER decisions addressing engineers who obtained confidential information in one professional context and subsequently moved to positions where that information could provide competitive advantage
The ethical analysis of Engineer A's situation is anchored to and constrained by an established body of professional precedent; the outcome is not purely discretionary but must be consistent with prior BER reasoning.
1974 through 1985 and beyond (prior to and contextualizing the present case)
Through a series of Board of Ethical Review decisions from 1974 through 1985 and beyond, a body of precedent addressing confidentiality and conflicts of interest in engineering practice comes into existence. This historical accumulation of decisions constitutes an exogenous contextual event that shapes the normative framework applicable to Engineer A's situation.
Through a series of Board of Ethical Review decisions from 1974 through 1985 and beyond, a body of precedent is established that provides the normative and interpretive framework within which Engineer A's confidentiality obligations are defined, scoped, and enforced
BER Precedent Framework Established (Event 4)
Without the BER Precedent Framework, Engineer A's obligations would rest solely on the general text of the NSPE Code, leaving significant ambiguity about scope, duration, and application of confidentiality duties in competitive employment contexts; the framework does not create the obligation but defines its contours
Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated (Event 3), normative grounding
Applicability of BER precedents to Engineer A's specific fact pattern
BER's institutional authority to issue binding or persuasive ethical interpretations
Engineer A's professional obligation to be aware of and comply with established ethical precedents
Existence of prior BER cases presenting analogous conflict-of-interest and confidentiality scenarios
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (institutional) and Engineer A (compliance obligation)
Established BER precedents on confidentiality + analogous fact pattern in Engineer A's case + professional obligation to follow ethical guidance = sufficient normative framework to define Engineer A's obligations with specificity
BER Precedent Framework Established (Event 4) → Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated (Event 3) — normative grounding
CausalLink_Accept Position at Competitor
CausalLink_Accept Retention by Defendant'
CausalLink_Accept Retention by Opposing P
CausalLink_Access Confidential Design Inf
CausalLink_Decline Favorable Plaintiff Re
CausalLink_Resign from Government Agency
CausalLink_Withhold Company X Confidentia
Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
{'entity_type': 'Private company', 'information_submitted': 'Confidential and proprietary facility design information', 'competitive_exposure': 'Proprietary designs accessible to Engineer A who joined direct competitor'}
Company X submitted confidential and proprietary design information to the government agency where Engineer A worked, and is now competitively at risk because Engineer A has joined Company Y, a direct competitor with potential access to Company X's proprietary information.
{'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company'}
{'type': 'confidential_information_source_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer'}
{'type': 'regulatory_submission_to', 'target': 'Government Agency'}
Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
Company Y Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation
Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation Organizational Capability
Company Y was obligated to possess and exercise the organizational capability to recognize that hiring Engineer A — who had prior government agency access to Company X's confidential design information — created a competitive advantage that could not ethically be exploited, and to implement appropriate information barriers and assignment restrictions to prevent such exploitation.
Company Y hired Engineer A knowing she had worked for the government agency that received Company X's confidential design submissions, creating an organizational obligation to prevent exploitation of that prior access
The organizational obligation to assess and manage the competitive advantage created by Engineer A's prior regulatory access to Company X's proprietary information before assigning Engineer A to work competitive with or adverse to Company X
Company Y Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation Organizational
Company Y was required to recognize and refrain from exploiting the competitive advantage created by hiring Engineer A — specifically, Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — by implementing information barriers and recusal arrangements preventing Engineer A from participating in work adverse to Company X.
Current case: Company Y hiring Engineer A, a former government agency engineer with access to Company X's confidential design information.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer A's employment with Company Y is permissible only if confidential information is not disclosed or used, implying organizational responsibility to implement safeguards.
Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y, provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A's employment with the government agency.
engineers have an obligation not to disclose (without consent) confidential information concerning the business affairs or the technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
Company Y Non-Exploitation of Engineer A's Prior Government Access to Company X Information
Company Y hired Engineer A knowing that Engineer A had worked at a government agency with regulatory authority over Company X and other competitors. Company Y bears an independent obligation not to exploit the informational advantage created by Engineer A's prior government access to Company X's confidential submissions.
Post-Public-Employment Competitor Non-Exploitation Constraint
Company Y is constrained from exploiting the competitive advantage created by hiring Engineer A — specifically, Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information obtained during government agency employment — prohibiting Company Y from directing, encouraging, or permitting Engineer A to use that information to benefit Company Y's competitive position against Company X, as established by NSPE Code Section III.4 and the principle that AE firms may not obtain competitive advantage through improper use of confidential information accessed by employees in prior regulatory roles.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6; Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
From the date of Engineer A's employment with Company Y, ongoing
Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
During Engineer A's tenure with the government agency, Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs.
The ethical situation transforms from latent risk to active conflict of interest; Engineer A now simultaneously holds confidential knowledge advantageous to Company Y and owes duties of non-disclosure to Company X; the tension between employer loyalty and prior confidentiality obligations is fully activated.
At the moment Engineer A's employment at Company Y commences
Upon Engineer A accepting a position at Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, a conflict of interest situation comes into existence as an automatic consequence of the employment transition. This is not a decision but the structural outcome of two facts coinciding: Engineer A's confidential knowledge and her new competitive employment context.
Competitive Conflict Situation Arises (Event 2) → Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated (Event 3)
As a consequence of Engineer A's resignation and entry into competitive employment, her pre-existing confidentiality obligations are activated in their most demanding and perpetual form, requiring continuous non-disclosure throughout her employment at Company Y
Competitive Conflict Situation Arises (Event 2)
Had Engineer A remained in government service or moved to a non-competing employer, the confidentiality obligations would have remained latent and less operationally demanding; the perpetual activation is specifically caused by the competitive employment choice
Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated (Event 3)
Absence of any waiver or release from confidentiality obligations by affected parties
Engineer A's transition into a role where confidential knowledge could provide competitive advantage
Prior existence of confidentiality obligations arising from government access to proprietary data
The competitive relationship between Company X and Company Y
Pre-existing confidentiality duty + competitive employment context + no waiver = sufficient to activate perpetual and ongoing non-disclosure obligations
Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A's employment with the government agency and makes this obligation clear to Company Y before accepting employment.
The Board concluded that Engineer A's transition to Company Y is ethically permissible (compliance, not a violation) subject to two explicit conditions: (1) Engineer A must not disclose confidential and proprietary design information about Company X acquired during government agency employment, and (2) Engineer A must make this confidentiality obligation clear to Company Y before accepting employment. The conclusion balances the principle of competitive employment freedom against the perpetual confidentiality obligation arising from Engineer A's prior government regulatory access to Company X's proprietary submissions, grounded in the faithful agent and trustee duties under Section II.4 and the confidentiality provisions of Section III.4.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A may join Company Y provided she withholds Company X's confidential information and discloses the conflict before accepting employment, the Board's conclusion is structurally incomplete because it addresses only the threshold moment of employment acceptance and not the ongoing conduct obligations that persist throughout Engineer A's tenure at Company Y. Engineer A's ethical duties do not terminate once she discloses the conflict and accepts the position; rather, they generate a continuing affirmative obligation to recuse herself from any project, assignment, or internal deliberation at Company Y that directly involves Company X's facility designs, regulatory submissions, or competitive positioning in domains where her government access gave her privileged structural knowledge. This recusal obligation should be documented formally — through written notice to Company Y's management and project assignment records — so that the boundary between permissible general expertise and impermissible use of confidential regulatory knowledge is institutionally traceable and not left to Engineer A's individual judgment alone. The absence of such a documented recusal mechanism creates a structural gap in the Board's otherwise sound conditional permission, because the risk of inadvertent or subconscious use of confidential knowledge is highest precisely in the ongoing work environment where competitive pressures are constant and the line between general expertise and privileged knowledge is difficult to police without formal procedures.
The Board's conclusion requires Engineer A to disclose her prior government access to Company Y before accepting employment, but it does not address whether Company X — the party whose proprietary information is most directly at risk — bears any right to notification or whether Engineer A or Company Y bears any corresponding duty to provide it. This omission is ethically significant. Under the faithful agent and trustee standard, Engineer A's confidentiality obligation runs not merely as a prohibition on disclosure but as an affirmative duty of trust toward the interests of those whose information she holds. Company X submitted its confidential design information to the government agency with a reasonable expectation that the regulatory process would protect it from competitive exploitation. That expectation is materially threatened when an engineer with direct access to those submissions transitions to a direct competitor. While the NSPE Code does not explicitly require notification to Company X, the principle that engineers shall not promote or arrange for new employment to the detriment of a client or employer — read in conjunction with the faithful agent standard — supports the conclusion that Engineer A should at minimum consider whether Company X's interests require some form of protective notice, particularly if Engineer A is assigned to work that directly competes with Company X's approved or pending facility designs. The Board's silence on this point leaves Company X without any procedural protection beyond Engineer A's individual conscience, which is an insufficient safeguard given the structural competitive asymmetry created by the employment transition.
The Board acknowledges that the duration of Engineer A's confidentiality obligation is indeterminate but declines to establish any standard or mechanism for when, if ever, that obligation expires. This indeterminacy, left unresolved, creates a practical problem that undermines the workability of the Board's conditional permission over time. From a deontological perspective, the duty of trust that grounds Engineer A's confidentiality obligation does not automatically dissolve with the passage of time, because the obligation derives from the nature of the relationship and the act of entrusting — not from the continued commercial sensitivity of the information. However, from a consequentialist perspective, a perpetual and absolute confidentiality obligation that never accounts for changed circumstances — such as the public disclosure of Company X's facility design through regulatory approval, the obsolescence of the underlying technology, or Company X's own abandonment of the design — would impose career restrictions on Engineer A that are disproportionate to any remaining protective interest. A more analytically complete conclusion would hold that Engineer A's obligation persists as long as the information retains competitive or regulatory sensitivity that was not publicly disclosed through the approval process itself, and that the burden of demonstrating that sensitivity has lapsed falls on Engineer A before she may treat the information as freely usable. This standard preserves the protective purpose of the confidentiality obligation while providing Engineer A with a principled mechanism for assessing when her constraint has been lifted by changed circumstances rather than by the mere passage of time or her own convenience.
The Board's analysis does not address the systemic dimension of the revolving-door problem it implicitly resolves at the individual level. By permitting Engineer A's transition to Company Y subject only to individual confidentiality maintenance and pre-employment disclosure, the Board's conclusion, if generalized across the engineering profession, creates a structural incentive problem: government agencies that rely on confidential regulatory submissions from private companies will find that the value of those submissions as competitive intelligence makes their reviewing engineers attractive targets for competitor recruitment, and the individual confidentiality obligation — enforced only through professional ethics rather than institutional policy — is a weak safeguard against systematic erosion of regulatory integrity. The government agency itself bears an institutional responsibility, which the Board does not acknowledge, to establish formal revolving-door policies that restrict post-employment transitions to direct competitors of companies whose confidential submissions an engineer reviewed, at least for a defined cooling-off period. The absence of such a policy does not diminish Engineer A's individual ethical obligations, but it does mean that the ethical burden of protecting regulatory integrity is being borne entirely by individual engineers rather than by the institutional structures best positioned to enforce it. A complete ethical analysis would note that Engineer A's compliance with her individual obligations is necessary but not sufficient to protect the systemic integrity of the regulatory process, and that the Board's silence on institutional responsibility leaves a significant gap in the overall ethical framework governing government-to-private-sector transitions.
The Board's conditional permission for Engineer A to join Company Y does not adequately address the scenario — raised by analogy to BER Case 85-4 — in which Company Y later becomes involved in an adversarial regulatory or legal proceeding against Company X and Engineer A is asked to contribute technical analysis drawing on her domain expertise. In BER Case 85-4, the Board held that an engineer who had provided confidential information to one party in a proceeding could not ethically accept retention by the opposing party, and that claimed naivety about the conflict did not serve as mitigation. Applied to the current case, this precedent implies that if Company X and Company Y become adversaries in any regulatory, contractual, or legal proceeding involving the facility design domain in which Engineer A holds Company X's confidential information, Engineer A would be categorically barred from contributing to Company Y's position in that proceeding — regardless of whether she explicitly references Company X's confidential submissions or claims to rely only on general expertise. The structural knowledge she accumulated through regulatory access creates a conflict that cannot be neutralized by mental segregation alone. The Board's conclusion should have explicitly flagged this downstream adversarial participation risk as a constraint on Engineer A's permissible scope of work at Company Y, rather than leaving it to be inferred from prior BER precedent. Company Y should also be made aware of this constraint at the time of Engineer A's pre-employment disclosure, because it materially affects the range of assignments Engineer A can ethically accept.
The Board's conclusion implicitly assumes that the competitive intelligence value of Engineer A's government access is incidental to Company Y's hiring decision, but it does not address the ethically distinct scenario in which Company Y recruits Engineer A specifically because of her knowledge of Company X's design strategies. If Company Y's hiring motivation is explicitly or primarily the competitive intelligence value of Engineer A's regulatory access — rather than her general engineering expertise — then the employment transition is not merely a permissible revolving-door situation subject to confidentiality constraints, but a structured attempt to exploit the regulatory process for competitive advantage. In that scenario, both Engineer A and Company Y would bear heightened ethical obligations: Engineer A would be obligated to decline the position or, at minimum, to make explicit to Company Y that she cannot and will not provide any information derived from her government access, and Company Y would be obligated under the faithful agent and conflict of interest avoidance principles to refrain from assigning Engineer A to any work where her prior access could provide competitive advantage over Company X. The Board's silence on the motivational dimension of the hiring decision leaves open a significant ethical gap, because the same employment transition that is conditionally permissible when motivated by legitimate expertise recruitment becomes ethically impermissible when motivated by the desire to acquire competitive intelligence through the back channel of a former government reviewer.
In response to Q101, Engineer A's ethical obligations extend beyond merely refraining from active disclosure of Company X's confidential design information. A genuinely compliant posture requires Engineer A to proactively recuse herself from any assignment at Company Y that involves competing directly with Company X's approved or pending facility designs, particularly where her government-acquired structural knowledge of Company X's design approaches could — even subconsciously — inform her technical judgments. This recusal should be formalized in writing at the outset of employment, specifying the subject-matter domains from which Engineer A is excluded, and should be documented in a manner accessible to Company Y's project managers so that inadvertent assignment can be prevented. The recusal record also serves a protective function for Engineer A herself, creating a contemporaneous audit trail demonstrating good-faith compliance with her confidentiality obligations. Without such structural safeguards, the Board's conditional permission to accept employment risks becoming a nominal constraint that is practically unenforceable.
In response to Q102, the Board's conclusion is incomplete in limiting its disclosure requirement solely to Company Y. Because Company X is the party whose proprietary regulatory submissions are most directly at risk from Engineer A's transition to a direct competitor, basic principles of fairness and the faithful-agent obligation suggest that Company X also has a legitimate interest in knowing that an individual with access to its confidential design information has joined a competing firm. While the NSPE Code does not explicitly mandate notification to the originating company, the spirit of Section III.4 — which protects confidential information concerning the business affairs of clients — implies that Engineer A should at minimum consider whether Company X's consent or awareness is warranted. Notification to Company X would allow that company to assess whether any protective measures are necessary, such as seeking additional assurances or adjusting its ongoing regulatory submissions. The absence of a mandatory notification requirement in the Board's conclusion leaves a structural gap that could undermine the very confidentiality protections the Code is designed to enforce.
In response to Q103, the Board's acknowledgment of the indeterminacy of the confidentiality obligation's duration is ethically significant but practically insufficient without a governing standard. A workable framework should assess expiration of the confidentiality duty against at least three criteria: first, whether the specific design information has entered the public domain through regulatory disclosure, publication, or independent development by third parties; second, whether the technology embodied in Company X's confidential submissions has been superseded to the point where the information no longer confers competitive advantage; and third, whether the passage of time, combined with material changes in the competitive landscape, renders the information commercially inert. Until all three conditions are satisfied, Engineer A's duty to protect Company X's confidential design information should be treated as continuing. This multi-factor standard is consistent with the perpetual confidentiality norm recognized in BER Case 85-4, while providing a principled mechanism for eventual expiration rather than imposing an indefinite and potentially unreasonable burden on Engineer A's professional mobility.
In response to Q104, the government agency bears a distinct institutional responsibility to establish formal revolving-door policies governing engineers who have had access to confidential regulatory submissions. The absence of such policies does not diminish Engineer A's individual ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, but it does represent a systemic failure that increases the probability of inadvertent or deliberate misuse of confidential information across the broader population of government engineers transitioning to private practice. The moral burden is not transferred to Engineer A by the agency's omission — her duties under Sections II.4 and III.4 are independent of institutional policy — but the agency's failure to implement structural safeguards creates an environment in which compliance depends entirely on individual ethical judgment rather than enforceable institutional norms. Company Y also bears a derivative responsibility: knowing that Engineer A held government regulatory access, Company Y should not assign her to work that could exploit that access, regardless of whether any formal policy prohibits it.
In response to Q201, the tension between Competitive Employment Freedom and the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition is real and structural, not merely theoretical. While the Board correctly concludes that Engineer A may accept employment at Company Y, the practical scope of her permissible contributions at Company Y may be significantly constrained by the prohibition on participating in work that directly competes with or adversely affects Company X's interests using knowledge derived from regulatory access. If Company Y's primary business in the relevant facility design domain overlaps substantially with Company X's approved designs, Engineer A's effective utility to Company Y in that domain may be severely limited. This does not render the employment ethically impermissible, but it does mean that both Engineer A and Company Y must enter the employment relationship with clear-eyed awareness that her contribution scope will be bounded. The Board's conclusion permitting employment is therefore accurate but incomplete without acknowledging this structural limitation on Engineer A's role.
In response to Q203, the Board's requirement that Engineer A disclose her prior government access to Company Y before accepting employment creates a genuine tension with her confidentiality obligation toward Company X. The very act of explaining the nature and scope of her access — necessary for Company Y to understand the conflict — risks revealing that Company X submitted confidential design information of a particular character, scope, or strategic significance. Engineer A must therefore calibrate her disclosure to Company Y with care: she should convey the existence and general subject-matter domain of her access without disclosing the substantive content, design details, or competitive implications of Company X's submissions. This calibrated disclosure approach is consistent with Section III.4.a, which requires consent of all interested parties before arranging employment that could disadvantage a former client. In practice, this means Engineer A's disclosure to Company Y should be framed in terms of the categories of information she cannot use, rather than the content of what she knows.
In response to Q204, the tension between Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance and Revolving Door Integrity is one of the most structurally difficult problems in engineering ethics for government-to-private transitions. The Board's resolution — permitting employment with a confidentiality constraint — represents a reasonable middle position, but it underweights the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle when the confidential information is technical, long-lived, and directly relevant to the competitor's core business. Where the information Engineer A holds is not merely incidental but constitutes a sustained competitive advantage — as is plausible with facility design data that may remain valid for decades — the Revolving Door Integrity principle's goal of preserving career mobility must yield to a more robust application of conflict avoidance. In such cases, the ethical weight should shift toward requiring Engineer A to avoid not just active disclosure but any role at Company Y where her structural knowledge of Company X's design philosophy could influence project outcomes, even indirectly.
In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent and trustee does generate a categorical obligation to protect Company X's confidential design information that is not contingent on demonstrable harm. The Kantian structure of the faithful-agent duty under Section II.4 treats the obligation of confidentiality as arising from the relationship of trust itself — the government agency's receipt of Company X's proprietary submissions created a duty of protection that Engineer A assumed by virtue of her role, independent of consequences. This means that even if disclosure would cause no measurable competitive harm to Company X — perhaps because the technology has been partially superseded — the categorical duty to refrain from using or disclosing the information persists until the information is genuinely in the public domain. The deontological analysis therefore supports a stricter reading of the confidentiality obligation than the Board's conclusion implies, one that does not permit Engineer A to rely on a harm-minimization calculus to justify reduced vigilance over time.
In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the Board's permissive conclusion is vulnerable to a systemic harm objection that individual-level analysis cannot fully address. If the ethical standard permits government engineers to transition to competitors of companies whose confidential submissions they reviewed — provided only that they personally refrain from disclosure — the aggregate effect across many such transitions may be a significant erosion of regulatory integrity. Companies submitting confidential design information to government agencies do so with an expectation that the information will be protected not merely from active disclosure but from the structural informational advantage that a knowledgeable former regulator brings to a competitor. A consequentialist analysis would require the Board to weigh not only the individual case but the rule-level effects of its conclusion: if the rule 'government engineers may join competitors with a confidentiality pledge' becomes standard practice, the chilling effect on candid regulatory submissions could undermine the quality of government oversight. The Board's conclusion is defensible at the individual level but requires supplementation with systemic safeguards — such as mandatory recusal protocols and agency-level revolving-door policies — to be consequentially sound.
In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics perspective, the standard of genuine professional integrity demands more than passive non-disclosure. An engineer of authentic virtue — one who has internalized the values of trustworthiness, fairness, and professional responsibility rather than merely complying with their letter — would recognize that the structural knowledge of Company X's design approaches accumulated during government service cannot be cleanly partitioned from her professional judgment. The virtue ethics tradition, which asks what a person of good character would do rather than what rules minimally require, supports proactive recusal from any work at Company Y that could benefit from this structural knowledge, even where the benefit would be subconscious or indirect. This is consistent with the capability identified as 'Engineer A Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition' — the acknowledgment that cognitive compartmentalization of deeply internalized technical knowledge is not reliably achievable. Virtuous conduct therefore requires Engineer A to err on the side of broader recusal rather than narrower, accepting some limitation on her professional contribution as the price of genuine integrity.
In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, the duty to disclose a conflict of interest is not directionally limited to the party who benefits from the disclosure. If Engineer A's obligation to disclose to Company Y arises from the principle that parties affected by a conflict deserve notice — as grounded in Section II.4.a — then the same principle applies with equal or greater force to Company X, which is the party whose proprietary interests are most directly threatened. The deontological argument for disclosure to Company X is in fact stronger than for Company Y: Company Y is the beneficiary of Engineer A's expertise and can protect itself through contractual arrangements, whereas Company X is the vulnerable party with no contractual relationship with Engineer A and no independent means of learning about the transition. Failing to notify Company X treats that company merely as an object of the confidentiality obligation rather than as a rights-bearing party entitled to know that its information is now held by an employee of its direct competitor. The Board's silence on this point represents a gap in the deontological completeness of its analysis.
In response to Q401, if Engineer A had accepted employment with Company Y without disclosing her prior government access to Company X's confidential design information, and was subsequently assigned to a project directly competing with Company X's approved facility design, the Board's analysis would almost certainly shift from conditional permission to outright prohibition. The triggering threshold for that transition involves two compounding violations: first, the failure to disclose the conflict of interest to Company Y before accepting employment, which violates Section II.4.a independently; and second, the active participation in work that could exploit or be informed by Company X's confidential submissions, which violates Section III.4. The combination of non-disclosure and adversarial assignment would constitute a complete breach of Engineer A's ethical obligations, not merely a procedural deficiency. The specific threshold is therefore not a single act but the conjunction of concealment at hiring and subsequent assignment to conflicted work — either element alone might be remediable, but together they would place Engineer A in a position of irredeemable ethical violation under the NSPE Code.
In response to Q402, the presence of an explicit revolving-door clause in Engineer A's government employment contract would not strengthen her underlying ethical obligations under the NSPE Code — those obligations exist independently of contractual provisions — but it would make them legally enforceable and would remove any ambiguity about their scope and duration. Conversely, the absence of such a clause does not diminish Engineer A's ethical duties: the NSPE Code's confidentiality and conflict-of-interest provisions operate as professional ethical standards that bind Engineer A regardless of what her employment contract does or does not specify. The practical effect of a contractual clause would be to align legal and ethical obligations, reducing the risk that Engineer A might rationalize reduced vigilance on the grounds that no formal prohibition exists. The absence of such a clause therefore represents an institutional gap — attributable to the government agency — that increases reliance on Engineer A's individual ethical judgment but does not alter the substance of what that judgment requires.
In response to Q403, if Company X later became involved in an adversarial regulatory or legal proceeding against Company Y and Engineer A was asked to provide technical analysis drawing on her general expertise — without explicitly referencing Company X's confidential submissions — the switching-sides prohibition recognized in BER Case 85-4 would apply with substantial force. The critical insight from BER Case 85-4 is that the prohibition is not limited to cases where the engineer explicitly uses confidential information; it extends to situations where the engineer's prior access creates an appearance of impropriety or a structural conflict that cannot be neutralized by claimed ignorance of the connection. Engineer A's claimed ignorance that her general expertise was informed by her government-acquired knowledge of Company X's design approaches would provide no meaningful mitigation, consistent with the principle that naivety does not exculpate — as reflected in the constraint 'Engineer A Naivety Non-Exculpation — BER Case 85-4.' The adversarial context would trigger a categorical bar on Engineer A's participation, regardless of whether she consciously drew on Company X's confidential submissions.
In response to Q404, if Company Y specifically recruited Engineer A because of her government-acquired knowledge of Company X's design strategies — making competitive intelligence an explicit factor in the hiring decision — the Board's conditional permission to accept employment would not hold. This scenario transforms the employment transition from a permissible career move with incidental confidentiality obligations into a deliberate scheme to exploit confidential regulatory submissions for competitive advantage, which is precisely what Sections III.4 and III.4.a are designed to prevent. Under these circumstances, Engineer A would be ethically prohibited from accepting the position, because doing so would make her a willing instrument of the misappropriation of Company X's confidential information, regardless of whether she personally disclosed any specific design details. Company Y would bear independent ethical culpability for structuring a recruitment strategy around the exploitation of confidential government-access information. Both parties would be in violation of the NSPE Code, and Engineer A's obligation would be to decline the offer and, if appropriate, report the circumstances to the relevant professional or regulatory authorities.
The Board resolved the tension between Competitive Employment Freedom and the Confidentiality Obligation toward Company X's regulatory submissions not by subordinating one principle to the other, but by conditioning the former on strict compliance with the latter. This conditional resolution treats confidentiality as a threshold constraint rather than a competing value to be balanced: Engineer A retains the right to pursue private employment, but that right is structurally bounded by a non-negotiable duty to withhold Company X's proprietary design information. The practical effect is that Competitive Employment Freedom is preserved in form but significantly constrained in substance, because Engineer A's utility to Company Y in any work stream touching Company X's design domain is permanently diminished. This case teaches that when a principle rooted in public trust — here, the protection of confidential regulatory submissions — conflicts with a principle rooted in individual professional autonomy, the Board treats the public-trust principle as lexically prior: freedom of employment survives, but only in the space that remains after confidentiality obligations have been fully honored.
The interaction between the Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation and the Loyalty Obligation to Company Y within ethical limits reveals a structural asymmetry that the Board's conclusion leaves partially unresolved. As a faithful agent and trustee — first to the government agency and derivatively to Company X as a submitting party — Engineer A carries a confidentiality duty that predates and survives her relationship with Company Y. When these obligations collide, the faithful-agent duty to the prior principal functions as a hard ceiling on what Engineer A can legitimately offer Company Y. The Loyalty Obligation to Company Y is therefore not merely limited by ethics in the abstract; it is specifically and materially curtailed by the content of what Engineer A knows. This case teaches that loyalty to a current employer is always prospective and conditional, while confidentiality obligations to prior principals are retrospective and categorical. An engineer cannot discharge the former by simply intending not to disclose; she must actively structure her work at Company Y to ensure that the competitive intelligence value of her prior government access is never operationalized, even indirectly. The Board's conclusion gestures at this by requiring pre-employment disclosure, but does not fully articulate the ongoing affirmative conduct — including potential recusal from specific projects — that genuine reconciliation of these two principles demands.
The tension between the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle and the Revolving Door Integrity principle exposes a deeper normative question the Board does not fully answer: how long must an engineer bear the competitive disadvantage imposed by prior government access to confidential information? The Board acknowledges the indeterminacy of the confidentiality obligation's duration — noting it persists without specifying when it ends — but declines to establish any mechanism for its expiration. This silence reflects an implicit prioritization of Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection over Revolving Door Integrity whenever the confidential information is technical and potentially long-lived. The case thus teaches that the revolving-door principle, while legitimate and important for sustaining a pipeline of experienced engineers between public and private sectors, cannot be invoked to erode confidentiality duties whose duration is tied to the competitive sensitivity of the underlying information rather than to the passage of calendar time. The ethical resolution is not a fixed time limit but a functional standard: Engineer A's confidentiality obligation persists as long as the design information she accessed retains competitive value in the marketplace — a standard that requires ongoing professional judgment rather than a one-time disclosure at the moment of employment transition. The absence of a formal revolving-door policy in the government agency's employment framework does not diminish this obligation; it merely shifts the burden of self-governance entirely onto Engineer A, reinforcing that ethical duties under the NSPE Code are independent of and supplementary to whatever contractual or regulatory mechanisms an employer has or has not established.
Engineer A transitions from ordinary employee to a person carrying a confidential knowledge burden that persists beyond her employment; the ethical risk profile of any future employment in the same industry is permanently elevated.
During tenure at government agency (ongoing, prior to resignation)
Through repeated exposure to proprietary design submissions from Company X and other firms, Engineer A accumulates a body of sensitive technical knowledge. This accumulation is an emergent outcome of her routine regulatory duties rather than a discrete volitional act.
Should Engineer A accept employment at Company Y, and if so, what obligations must she fulfill before accepting?
Engineer A's decision whether to accept employment at Company Y given her prior government access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions, and what pre-employment obligations attach to that decision.
Accept the position at Company Y after proactively disclosing to Company Y — before acceptance — the nature, subject-matter domain, and scope of Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions, framed in terms of what categories of information she cannot use rather than the substantive content of what she knows
Decline the position at Company Y entirely on the grounds that the competitive relationship between Company Y and Company X — combined with the depth and technical specificity of Engineer A's regulatory access — creates a conflict of interest too substantial to be managed through disclosure and confidentiality maintenance alone
Accept the position at Company Y and disclose the prior government access only if Company Y directly assigns Engineer A to work involving Company X's facility designs, treating the conflict as a matter to be managed reactively through project-level recusal rather than proactively through pre-employment disclosure
Does Engineer A's confidentiality obligation require only passive non-disclosure of Company X's information, or does it also require proactive recusal from assignments at Company Y where her structural knowledge could — even subconsciously — inform her technical judgments?
Engineer A's ongoing obligation to withhold Company X's confidential design information during her tenure at Company Y, including whether passive non-disclosure is sufficient or whether proactive recusal from conflicted assignments is required.
Formalize recusal in writing at the outset of employment, specifying the subject-matter domains from which Engineer A is excluded due to prior government access, and provide that documentation to Company Y's project managers so that inadvertent assignment to conflicted work is structurally prevented
Refrain from actively disclosing or referencing Company X's confidential submissions in any work product or internal deliberation, relying on Engineer A's individual professional judgment to police the boundary between general expertise and privileged knowledge on a case-by-case basis without formal written recusal
Recuse from assignments that explicitly reference or directly replicate Company X's approved facility designs, while participating in general domain work in the same technical area on the grounds that general expertise in the field is legitimately deployable and broader recusal would impose disproportionate career restriction
Is Engineer A's pre-employment disclosure obligation satisfied by notifying Company Y alone, or does she also bear an obligation to notify Company X that its confidential design information is now held by an employee of a direct competitor?
Whether Engineer A's disclosure obligation runs only to Company Y as the new employer, or also extends to Company X as the party whose proprietary regulatory submissions are most directly at risk from the employment transition.
Disclose to Company Y — before accepting employment — the existence, subject-matter domain, and general scope of Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential submissions, framed in terms of what categories of information she cannot use, without disclosing substantive design content or competitive implications of Company X's submissions
Disclose to both Company Y and Company X — before accepting employment — that Engineer A holds Company X's confidential regulatory submission data and is transitioning to a direct competitor, allowing both parties to assess whether additional protective measures are warranted
Disclose to Company Y only at the point of specific project assignment involving Company X's design domain, treating pre-employment disclosure as unnecessary given that the confidentiality obligation itself — rather than advance notice — is the operative protection for Company X's interests
How should Engineer A assess the duration of her confidentiality obligation toward Company X's design information, and by what standard — if any — may she treat that obligation as having expired?
The duration and expiration of Engineer A's confidentiality obligation toward Company X's regulatory submissions, and what standard — if any — governs when that obligation may be treated as having lapsed.
Treat the confidentiality obligation as continuing indefinitely until Engineer A can affirmatively demonstrate — against a multi-factor standard assessing public domain entry, technological supersession, and commercial inertness — that Company X's design information no longer retains competitive sensitivity, placing the burden of proof on Engineer A rather than on the passage of time
Treat the confidentiality obligation as expiring after a defined cooling-off period — calibrated to the typical competitive lifecycle of facility design information in the relevant industry — after which Engineer A may exercise professional judgment about whether specific information retains sensitivity without bearing a formal burden of proof
Treat the confidentiality obligation as coextensive with the period during which Company X's approved facility design remains operationally active and commercially relevant, after which the information may be treated as part of Engineer A's general professional knowledge base without further restriction
If Company X and Company Y become adversaries in a regulatory or legal proceeding, is Engineer A categorically barred from contributing technical analysis on Company Y's behalf — even analysis she characterizes as drawing only on general expertise — given her prior government access to Company X's confidential submissions?
Whether Engineer A's participation in any adversarial regulatory or legal proceeding at Company Y involving Company X is categorically barred by the switching-sides prohibition from BER Case 85-4, and whether claimed reliance on general expertise rather than Company X's specific submissions provides any mitigation.
Recuse categorically from any technical contribution to Company Y's position in any adversarial regulatory or legal proceeding involving Company X, regardless of whether the contribution is characterized as drawing on general expertise rather than Company X's specific confidential submissions, and notify Company Y of this constraint at the outset of employment
Participate in Company Y's adversarial proceedings against Company X in a limited advisory capacity — reviewing general technical arguments without authoring expert opinions — on the grounds that passive review of publicly available information does not constitute the active switching-sides conduct prohibited by BER Case 85-4
Participate in Company Y's adversarial proceedings against Company X only in domains where Engineer A can affirmatively demonstrate — through documented analysis — that her contribution draws exclusively on publicly available information and general engineering principles with no overlap with the specific design domains covered by Company X's confidential regulatory submissions
Does the ethical permissibility of Engineer A accepting employment at Company Y depend on Company Y's hiring motivation — specifically, whether Company Y recruited Engineer A primarily for her general expertise or primarily for the competitive intelligence value of her government-acquired knowledge of Company X's design strategies?
Whether the ethical permissibility of Engineer A's employment transition to Company Y is altered when Company Y's hiring motivation is explicitly or primarily the competitive intelligence value of Engineer A's prior government access to Company X's design submissions, rather than her general engineering expertise.
Decline the position at Company Y if Engineer A has reasonable grounds to believe that the competitive intelligence value of her government-acquired knowledge of Company X's design strategies was a primary or explicit factor in Company Y's hiring decision, treating the motivational dimension of the recruitment as a threshold condition that transforms an otherwise permissible transition into an ethically impermissible one
Accept the position at Company Y regardless of hiring motivation, on the grounds that Engineer A's individual confidentiality maintenance obligation is the operative ethical constraint and that Company Y's internal motivations — which Engineer A cannot fully verify or control — do not alter the substance of what Engineer A is personally required to do or refrain from doing
Accept the position at Company Y but require Company Y to provide written confirmation — before acceptance — that Engineer A's engagement is predicated on her general engineering expertise and that no assignment will be made that exploits her prior regulatory access to Company X's submissions, treating this written assurance as a necessary condition for the employment transition to remain ethically permissible
Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report (BER 85-4)
Creation of a situation where his knowledge of the case and its findings could be exploited by adverse parties
Exposure of the plaintiff's litigation strategy and weaknesses through his subsequent availability
Termination of the engagement with plaintiff's attorney
Duty not to misrepresent engineering findings
Obligation to provide honest and objective engineering analysis
Faithful agency to client within bounds of ethical conduct
Honesty and objectivity in engineering analysis
Maintain professional integrity and honesty by refusing to produce a report whose conclusions would misrepresent his engineering findings
Engineering and safety analysis expertise
Ethical courage to decline producing a misleading report
Professional judgment to recognize when findings cannot support client's position
Historical reference case, during first engagement with plaintiff's attorney
In the historical reference case BER 85-4, the forensic engineer decided he could not provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff after completing his review and analysis, because the results indicated the plaintiff rather than the defendant was at fault.
Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report (BER 85-4) (Action 6) → Favorable Report Opportunity Foreclosed (BER 85-4) (Event 6)
In the referenced BER Case 85-4, after Engineer A (the forensic engineer in that case) declines to provide a favorable engineering report, the opportunity for the plaintiff to obtain that report from this engineer is permanently foreclosed, triggering the subsequent retention by the defendant's attorney
Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report (BER 85-4) (Action 6)
Had the forensic engineer provided the favorable report despite honest reservations, the plaintiff's attorney would not have terminated the engagement, the defendant's attorney would not have retained the engineer, and the BER 85-4 ethical question would not have arisen in this form
Favorable Report Opportunity Foreclosed (BER 85-4) (Event 6)
Existence of the defendant's attorney as an alternative retaining party
Forensic engineer's honest professional assessment that a favorable plaintiff report was not supportable
Plaintiff attorney's termination of the engineer following the unfavorable assessment
The engineer's ethical commitment to honest reporting over client-favorable outcomes
Honest professional assessment incompatible with plaintiff's position + termination by plaintiff attorney + availability of defendant retention = sufficient to produce the dual-retention ethical scenario in BER 85-4
Engineer A Adversarial Non-Participation Scope Determination at Company Y
Adversarial Non-Participation Scope Determination Capability
Engineer A possessed — and was obligated to exercise — the capability to identify which assignments at Company Y would be adverse to Company X's interests and would exploit or benefit from the confidential design information she accessed during government agency employment, and to refrain from participating in any such adverse work.
Engineer A's employment at Company Y — a direct competitor of Company X — created ongoing obligations to refrain from work adverse to Company X that would exploit her prior regulatory access to Company X's confidential design information
The ongoing obligation to screen Company Y assignments for adverse nexus to Company X and to recuse from any work that would exploit prior government access to Company X's proprietary information
Engineer A Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition
Engineer A was required to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retention was the belief that Engineer A would provide a favorable opinion, and to respond ethically by declining the engagement and discussing the dilemma with Attorney Z.
BER Case 85-4: Attorney X learned of Engineer A's termination by plaintiff's counsel and sought retention to provide a 'separate and independent' report.
The BER's finding that Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons for retention by virtue of the sequence of events, and that naivety would not excuse acceptance of the engagement.
it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client.
The BER concluded that Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
The Board further noted that Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
Engineer A Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition
Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that having been exposed to plaintiff's confidential information, documents, and facts during the first engagement, it was not realistically possible to provide a truly independent report for the defendant — and to decline the engagement on this basis.
BER Case 85-4: Engineer A claimed to be providing a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defendant after having accessed plaintiff's confidential information.
The BER's rejection of the proposition that Engineer A could 'blot all' prior information from his mind and start from 'square one,' and its finding that Engineer A was not capable of providing a genuinely 'separate and independent' report.
The Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one' in performing his engineering and safety analysis report.
Engineer A, throughout his first analysis, had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
Nor did the Board believe the latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case.
Engineer A Confidential Regulatory Submission Information Boundary Recognition
Confidential Regulatory Submission Information Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed — and was obligated to exercise — the capability to recognize that confidential and proprietary design information received from Company X during government agency employment constituted protected information that could not be used or exploited in subsequent private employment at Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
Engineer A received access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information while employed by the government agency, then accepted employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X
Recognition that Company X's confidential design submissions to the government agency created ongoing confidentiality obligations that persisted after Engineer A's departure from the agency
Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to Company Y — Current Case
Engineer A's transition from government regulatory role to private employment with Company Y, requiring disclosure of the conflict created by prior access to Company X's confidential information
Engineer A was constrained to disclose to Company Y, prior to or upon accepting employment, that she had accessed confidential and proprietary design information belonging to Company X — a direct competitor of Company Y — during her government agency employment, so that Company Y could make an informed decision about the scope of Engineer A's permissible work assignments.
NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4; BER Case No. 82-6
Prior to or upon accepting employment with Company Y
Under the facts, consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X.
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to Company Y — Prior Government Access to Company X Information
Engineer A's transition to Company Y creates a conflict of interest arising from prior access to Company X's confidential information. The evolved professional standard requires prompt disclosure to the new employer rather than absolute avoidance of all employment with competitors, but disclosure must be complete and timely.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to disclose promptly and completely to Company Y, prior to or upon accepting employment, that Engineer A accessed confidential and proprietary design information submitted by Company X during government agency employment — enabling Company Y to make an informed decision about Engineer A's permissible scope of work and to establish appropriate information barriers, consistent with the evolved conflict-of-interest management standard requiring disclosure rather than absolute avoidance.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Standard
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance
Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance Capability
Engineer A was required to apply the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management — requiring prompt disclosure of all known conflicts — rather than relying on older, less stringent BER positions when navigating the government-to-private employment transition.
Current case: Engineer A navigating conflict-of-interest obligations arising from government-to-private employment transition in the context of evolved BER standards.
The BER's reference to the evolution of conflict-of-interest standards across multiple cases and the obligation to comply with the current evolved standard.
The aforementioned cases represent the longstanding BER positions relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another.
Obviously, the appropriate ethical course of action is dictated by the particular facts and circumstances of a case.
Engineer A Employment Terminated from Government Agency
From Engineer A's departure from the government agency onward
Engineer A's post-employment status relative to the government agency, with continuing obligations regarding confidential information accessed during tenure
Not terminated — post-employment confidentiality obligations persist
Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency
Engineer A Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation — Government Agency Regulatory Context
Engineer A's receipt and handling of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information in the course of government regulatory approval functions
Engineer A (current case — government agency employment)
Engineer A's role as a faithful agent and trustee of the government agency — which was entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — constrained Engineer A from disclosing or using that information for any purpose other than the regulatory function for which it was submitted, both during and after government employment.
NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4; current case Board analysis
The engineer's duty in this area is rooted in the obligation to serve as a faithful agent and trustee to the client or employer, and also the obligation to avoid circumstances that could appear to influence the engineer's professional judgment.
During government agency employment and post-employment, ongoing
Engineer A's obligation is linked to her employment with a government agency that was entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition
Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that confidentiality obligations to Company X arose from the dual obligations to serve as a faithful agent and trustee of the government agency and to avoid circumstances that could appear to influence professional judgment.
Current case: Engineer A transitioning from government agency employment to Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
The BER's grounding of Engineer A's confidentiality obligation in the faithful agent/trustee duty and the appearance-of-impropriety avoidance obligation.
Engineer A Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment
Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment Capability
Engineer A was obligated to possess and exercise the capability to assess whether accepting retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) — after having been terminated by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) in the same litigation — created an impermissible conflict of interest that would exploit confidential information and litigation strategy accessed during the initial retention.
Engineer A was initially retained by plaintiff's counsel Attorney Z, terminated after findings were unfavorable, and then sought by defendant's counsel Attorney X to provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis in the same litigation
The obligation to evaluate whether side-switching from plaintiff's expert to defendant's expert in the same personal injury litigation was ethically permissible given prior access to plaintiff's confidential litigation strategy and communications
Initially retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; terminated after determining findings were not favorable
Attorney X Defendant Counsel Client: Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert — Learned of Engineer A's termination by plaintiff's counsel and sought to retain Engineer A to provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides Conflict Assessment BER 85-4
Forensic Expert Switching Sides Conflict Assessment Capability
Engineer A was required to assess whether accepting retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) after having been retained and terminated by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) in the same litigation created an impermissible conflict of interest — and to correctly determine that side-switching was ethically impermissible.
BER Case 85-4: Engineer A terminated by plaintiff's counsel after determining findings would not support plaintiff; subsequently retained by defendant's counsel.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer A's actions were not ethical, finding that termination of the prior engagement did not resolve the conflict created by access to plaintiff's confidential information.
Nor was the fact that Engineer A had agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
Engineer A Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment
Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment Capability
Engineer A was required to assess the duration and persistence of duties of trust and loyalty to Attorney Z and the plaintiff following termination of the forensic engagement — recognizing that termination did not extinguish all ethical obligations arising from the prior relationship.
BER Case 85-4: Engineer A terminated by plaintiff's counsel and subsequently retained by defendant's counsel in the same litigation.
The BER's finding that Engineer A's termination of the relationship with Attorney Z did not mitigate the ongoing ethical obligations arising from access to plaintiff's confidential information and documents.
It must be recognized that, while an engineer may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, the engineer still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
Engineer A Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation — Company X Matters at Company Y
Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions creates a residual duty of non-adversarial use that constrains Engineer A's participation in Company Y work that is adverse to Company X and that would exploit that prior access.
Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation Obligation
Engineer A is constrained from participating in any work at Company Y that is adverse to Company X's interests and that would exploit or build upon the confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A accessed during government agency employment — including competitive analysis, design work, or regulatory strategy that draws on Company X's confidential submissions — as established by NSPE Code Section III.4 and BER Case No. 82-6.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
Indefinitely, for all matters in which Engineer A's prior government access to Company X's confidential information would be material
Engineer A Full Discussion With Attorney Z Obligation Constraint — BER Case 85-4
Forensic engineer who terminated engagement with plaintiff's attorney without fully discussing the ethical dilemma before accepting opposing retention
Engineer A (BER Case 85-4 forensic engineer)
Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
Before terminating the engagement with Attorney Z and before accepting any retention by Attorney X, Engineer A was constrained to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z — prohibiting unilateral termination and immediate acceptance of opposing retention without this prior discussion.
BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
Prior to termination of engagement with Attorney Z and prior to acceptance of engagement with Attorney X
Engineer A Government Regulatory Access Competitor Employment Scope Limitation — Current Case
Engineer A transitioned from government agency regulatory role — where she accessed Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — to employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X
Engineer A (current case — government agency to Company Y)
Government Regulatory Access Competitor Employment Scope Limitation Constraint
Engineer A is free to accept employment with Company Y (a direct competitor of Company X) but is constrained from disclosing or using any confidential and proprietary design information about Company X that Engineer A accessed during government agency employment — limiting the permissible scope of Engineer A's work at Company Y to activities that do not exploit or deploy that confidential information.
BER Case No. 82-6; NSPE Code Section III.4; current case Board analysis
From the point of accepting employment with Company Y, ongoing
Engineer A Naivety Non-Exculpation — BER Case 85-4
Forensic engineer who claimed or might have claimed unawareness of opposing attorney's strategic purpose in retaining him after his termination by plaintiff's counsel
Post-Termination Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Non-Exculpation Constraint
Engineer A could not invoke subjective unawareness of Attorney X's strategic motivations as an exculpatory defense, because the sequence of events — original retention, confidential access, termination, and opposing retention — created constructive awareness of the motivational basis for the new engagement.
At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X
Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, this would not excuse his actions.
Engineer A No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap — Government Agency Employment Contract
The case does not indicate that Engineer A's government agency employment contract contained explicit revolving door provisions. The constraint establishes that this absence does not diminish Engineer A's independent professional ethical obligations regarding the confidential information accessed during government employment.
No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
The absence of explicit revolving door provisions in Engineer A's government agency employment contract does not relieve Engineer A of the independent ethical obligations arising from the NSPE Code of Ethics — including conflict of interest avoidance, faithful agency, and honorable conduct — prohibiting Engineer A from treating the absence of formal contractual restrictions as implicit permission to exploit prior regulatory access to Company X's confidential information for the benefit of Company Y.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.4; No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
From the date of Engineer A's departure from the government agency
Engineer A Permissible Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Navigation
Permissible Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Navigation Capability
Engineer A was required to navigate the ethical framework governing employment with Company Y — recognizing that the employment itself is permissible, that the constraint is on use and disclosure of Company X's confidential information, and that appropriate information barriers and recusal arrangements must be implemented.
Current case: Engineer A accepting employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A accessed during government service.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y provided she does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information learned about Company X during government employment.
it is the Board's view that while many of the considerations discussed in the previous cases are relevant to this case, the Board must conclude that Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y, provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A's employment with the government agency.
Engineer A should not be unduly limited or penalized for accepting a position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
Engineer A Post-Employment Confidential Information Retention — Company X Design Data
Engineer A retains knowledge of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information acquired during government agency employment. This retained knowledge creates an ongoing constraint on Engineer A's professional conduct at Company Y.
Confidential Client Information Constraint
Engineer A's retention of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — in memory or in any form — following departure from the government agency creates an ongoing constraint prohibiting the use, disclosure, or exploitation of that information in any subsequent professional context, including employment with Company Y, arising from the professional duty to protect confidential information received in a regulatory capacity.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
Indefinitely following Engineer A's departure from the government agency
Engineer A Post-Employment Duty of Trust Duration — BER Case 85-4
Forensic engineer whose formal engagement was terminated but who retained residual confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the former client
Post-Employment Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Indeterminacy Constraint
Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney persisted after formal termination of the retainer agreement for an indeterminate period — the precise duration of which the Board declined to specify — prohibiting Engineer A from treating the formal end of the contractual relationship as a complete discharge of the residual duty.
while an engineer may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, the engineer still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
Post-termination of engagement with Attorney Z, duration indeterminate
How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, the Board is not prepared to state at this time.
Engineer A Post-Government-Employment Competitive Conflict Pre-Acceptance Assessment
Post-Government-Employment Competitive Conflict Pre-Acceptance Assessment Capability
Engineer A was obligated to possess and exercise the capability to assess, before accepting employment at Company Y, whether Company Y's competitive relationship with Company X — whose confidential information Engineer A had accessed — created an irreconcilable conflict of interest that would prevent Engineer A from performing work adverse to Company X's interests.
Engineer A transitioned from government agency employment — where she had access to Company X's confidential design information — to Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, without apparent pre-acceptance conflict assessment
The obligation to conduct a pre-acceptance conflict assessment before joining Company Y given prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions
Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Company X
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — accessed during government agency employment — constitutes protected information that must not be used, disclosed, or exploited in the subsequent private employment context at Company Y.
Current case: Engineer A transitioning from government agency to Company Y with prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submission information.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer A's obligation is linked to government agency employment entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information, and that this obligation persists into private employment.
Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use — Company X Design Information
Engineer A accessed Company X's confidential and proprietary design information while employed at a government agency reviewing facility design approvals. Engineer A subsequently accepted employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from exploiting that confidential access to benefit Company Y.
Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from using, disclosing, or exploiting Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — accessed during government agency employment in the course of reviewing Company X's regulatory submissions — to benefit Company Y or to disadvantage Company X in any competitive context, as established by NSPE Code Section III.4 and BER Case No. 82-6.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6
Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Non-Exploitation of Company X Confidential Information — Current Case
Engineer A's transition from government regulatory role to private employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A previously accessed
Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from exploiting, disclosing, or using Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — accessed during government agency employment — to benefit Company Y or to disadvantage Company X in competitive or adversarial contexts.
NSPE Code Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6
Post-employment from government agency, ongoing
Engineer A Prior Government Access Disclosure to Company Y
Prior Government Access Disclosure to Private Employer Capability
Engineer A was obligated to possess and exercise the capability to proactively disclose to Company Y, prior to or upon accepting employment, that she had accessed confidential and proprietary design information submitted by Company X — a direct competitor of Company Y — during her government agency tenure, so that Company Y could make an informed hiring decision and implement appropriate information barriers.
Engineer A accepted employment at Company Y without disclosed evidence of having informed Company Y of her prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions
The obligation to disclose prior government access to Company X's confidential information to Company Y as a condition of ethically permissible employment acceptance
Engineer A Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection — Company X Information
Engineer A received Company X's confidential and proprietary design information as part of the government agency's regulatory review process. This information was submitted in confidence by Company X for regulatory purposes and carries ongoing confidentiality obligations that survive Engineer A's departure from the agency.
Engineer A is constrained to protect Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — received in the course of the government agency's regulatory approval process — from disclosure to Company Y or any other third party, arising from the government agency's confidentiality obligations to submitting companies and Engineer A's professional duty to maintain the confidentiality of information received in a regulatory capacity.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; Government Agency Confidential Information Access Policy; NSPE Code Section II.1.c
Engineer A Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Government to Company Y
Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her transition from a government agency role — in which she had access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions — to Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, constituted a revolving door situation creating specific conflict of interest obligations including non-use of confidential information and adversarial non-participation.
Engineer A transitioned from government agency employment with access to Company X's confidential design information to private employment at Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X
The obligation to identify the revolving door conflict created by transitioning from regulatory access to competitive private employment and to take appropriate remedial action
Engineer A Revolving Door Government-to-Competitor Conflict — Current Case
Engineer A's revolving door transition from government regulatory employment to private-sector employment with a direct competitor of a company whose confidential information she accessed in her regulatory role
Revolving Door Government-to-Competitor Employment Conflict Constraint
Engineer A's transition from a government agency regulatory role — in which she held approval authority and received confidential proprietary submissions from Company X — to employment with Company Y (a direct competitor of Company X) creates a structural conflict of interest that constrains the permissible scope of her work at Company Y and requires disclosure of the conflict to Company Y.
NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4; BER Cases 82-6 and 85-4
Engineer A Revolving Door Government-to-Competitor Employment Conflict — Company Y
Engineer A moved from a government regulatory agency — where she exercised approval authority and received confidential industry submissions — to private employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A previously accessed. This revolving door transition creates a structural conflict requiring disclosure and scope limitation.
Engineer A's transition from a government agency role — in which she held regulatory approval authority and received confidential proprietary submissions from Company X — to employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, creates a structural conflict of interest that constrains Engineer A's permissible scope of work at Company Y and requires immediate disclosure of the conflict, prohibiting participation in work adverse to Company X that would exploit the confidential information accessed in the regulatory role.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.4; BER Case No. 82-6; Revolving Door Employment Policy
From the date of accepting employment with Company Y, with ongoing obligations regarding the confidential information accessed during government employment
Engineer A Switching Sides Forensic Expert Bar — BER Case 85-4
Forensic engineer retained by plaintiff's attorney, terminated after determining findings would favor defendant, subsequently retained by defendant's attorney in the same personal injury case
Engineer A was prohibited from accepting retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) after having been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) and having gained cooperative access to the plaintiff's confidential information, documents, and facts — because the prior confidential access created an irresolvable conflict of interest that could not be cured by termination of the original engagement or by framing the new engagement as independent.
From the point of accepting retention by Attorney Z through and after termination of that engagement
The Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one'
Engineer A's access to confidential Company X information during Engineer A's tenure at the government agency
Engineer A's access to confidential Company X information
Engineer A's tenure at the government agency
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to Company X after Engineer A's tenure at the government agency
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to Company X
Engineer A's employment at government agency meets Engineer A's employment at Company Y
Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y.
Engineer A's employment at government agency
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
Engineer A's initial review and analysis for Attorney Z (BER 85-4) before termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z
Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determined that he could not provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff... Engineer A's services were terminated and his fee was paid in full.
Engineer A's initial review and analysis for Attorney Z (BER 85-4)
termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z
Engineer A's tenure at the government agency before Engineer A's employment with Company Y
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard - General
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Confidentiality and Post-Relationship Loyalty Obligations
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
engineers have an obligation not to disclose (without consent) confidential information concerning the business affairs or the technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve
Engineer A's obligation is linked to her employment with a government agency that was entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information
while an engineer may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, the engineer still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
Applied to determine that Engineer A may accept employment with Company Y (a competitor of Company X) but must not disclose confidential and proprietary design information learned about Company X during government agency employment
Engineer Retained By Opposing Party (BER 82-6)
A conflict of interest is created by the engineer's simultaneous or sequential relationships with opposing parties; the BER's resolution of this case creates precedent applicable to Engineer A's situation.
Referenced as prior precedent; occurred in or around 1982
In the referenced BER Case 82-6, an engineer who had previously been retained by one party in a dispute is subsequently retained by the opposing party. This event, the retention by the opposing party, is an outcome that creates a direct conflict of interest and serves as a precedential analog to Engineer A's situation.
Favorable Report Opportunity Foreclosed (BER 85-4)
The engineer's relationship with the plaintiff is terminated or foreclosed; the engineer's honest assessment creates the conditions for a new engagement with the opposing party, raising questions about sequential retention and confidentiality.
Referenced as prior precedent; occurred in or around 1985
In the referenced BER Case 85-4, after Engineer A (the forensic engineer in that case) declines to produce a favorable report for the plaintiff, the opportunity to serve as the plaintiff's expert is effectively foreclosed. This is an outcome, the closing off of one professional path, that leads to the subsequent retention by the defendant's attorney.
Government regulatory agency and applicable ethics statutes
Government Agency Confidential and Proprietary Information Access Policy
Government Agency Confidential Information Access Policy
Engineer A during and after her government tenure
Establishes the specific obligations governing Engineer A's handling of confidential and proprietary design information received from Company X and other companies during her tenure at the government agency, including post-employment restrictions on disclosure or use of such information
{'type': 'Government regulatory agency', 'function': 'Regulatory approval of private company design submissions'}
The government agency that employed Engineer A and was entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information as part of a regulatory approval process. The agency's receipt of that information created Engineer A's ongoing confidentiality obligation even after departure from the agency.
{'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer'}
{'type': 'information_trustee_for', 'target': 'Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company'}
Engineer A's employment with the government agency
a government agency that was entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information
Government Agency Employer Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection
Client Data Confidentiality Management Capability
The government agency possessed the organizational capability to manage and protect the confidentiality of proprietary design information submitted by private companies — including Company X — in the course of regulatory review, including implementing policies that prevent employees such as Engineer A from exploiting that information in subsequent private employment.
The government agency received confidential and proprietary design information from Company X and other companies as part of its regulatory review function, creating institutional obligations to protect that information from misuse by departing employees
The agency's role as custodian of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information submitted for regulatory approval
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.4.b
Referenced in BER Case No. 85-4 regarding the prohibition on engineers switching sides in adversarial proceedings and the duty to protect confidential information from former clients
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.4.b
Citing NSPE Code Section III.4.b., the Board found that nothing in the record indicated that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the US government, to represent the interests of the contractor in its claim against the government for additional compensation.
Cited in BER Case No. 82-6 as the basis for finding it unethical for an engineer retained by the US government to subsequently represent a contractor with adverse interests against that government client without consent
Engineer A in evaluating post-employment ethical obligations
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to protect confidential and proprietary information obtained during government service and to avoid using it for competitive advantage at Company Y
Part-Time Consultant Non-Division of Loyalty in BER 74-2
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
In BER Case 74-2, part-time consultant arrangements to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those engineers from providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities, because the engineer's loyalties were not divided
The absence of divided loyalties is the operative ethical criterion — when a consulting arrangement does not create competing obligations that compromise the engineer's independent judgment, it is permissible
Part-Time Municipal Consulting Engineer Without Divided Loyalty
The Board noted, under the facts, that the engineer's loyalties were not divided
No tension arose in BER 74-2 because the loyalties were not divided; the case is cited as a contrast to situations where confidential information creates genuine conflict
In BER Case No. 74-2, the Board held that a part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities
Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated
The confidentiality obligation shifts from a passive background duty to an active, operationally significant constraint governing Engineer A's day-to-day professional conduct at Company Y.
Concurrent with commencement of employment at Company Y
As a consequence of Engineer A's resignation and entry into competitive employment, her pre-existing confidentiality obligations, previously somewhat abstract, become concretely and urgently operative. The obligation does not newly arise but is triggered into active, high-stakes relevance by the changed employment context.
Professional engineering ethics codes and government ethics frameworks
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineer A and ethics reviewers assessing the conflict arising from regulatory access to Company X's proprietary information
Governs Engineer A's obligations as a former public official who, in her regulatory capacity, received confidential proprietary submissions from private companies, and the conflict of interest arising from subsequent employment with a competitor of those companies
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these circumstances?
Does Engineer A have an obligation to proactively recuse herself from any work at Company Y that directly involves Company X, even if Company Y never explicitly asks her to contribute such knowledge, and how should that recusal be structured and documented?
Is the Board's conclusion sufficient in only requiring disclosure to Company Y before accepting employment, or should Engineer A also be required to notify Company X that its confidential information is now held by an employee of a direct competitor?
Given that the Board acknowledges the indeterminacy of the confidentiality obligation's duration, what mechanism or standard should govern when, if ever, Engineer A's duty to protect Company X's confidential design information expires, particularly as technology and competitive landscapes evolve?
Does the government agency itself bear any ethical or institutional responsibility to establish formal revolving-door policies that protect the confidentiality of regulatory submissions, and does the absence of such a policy shift any moral burden onto Engineer A or Company Y?
Does the Competitive Employment Freedom principle, which permits Engineer A to accept a position at Company Y, conflict with the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition, which may effectively bar her from contributing to any work that competes directly with Company X, thereby rendering her employment value to Company Y structurally compromised?
How does the Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A to Company Y within ethical limits conflict with the Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation grounding her duty to protect Company X's information, particularly when Company Y's competitive interests would be advanced by leveraging insights Engineer A gained through regulatory access?
Does the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle, which requires Engineer A to make her prior government access known to Company Y before accepting employment, tension with the Confidentiality Obligation toward Company X's regulatory submissions, insofar as the very act of disclosure to Company Y may reveal the nature or existence of Company X's proprietary information?
Does the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle, which counsels Engineer A to avoid situations where her government access creates unfair competitive advantage, conflict with the Revolving Door Integrity principle, which is meant to preserve the ability of government engineers to transition to private practice without permanent career restriction, and how should the Board weigh these competing values when the confidential information is technical and long-lived?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent and trustee to the government agency create a categorical obligation to protect Company X's confidential design information that persists indefinitely after employment ends, regardless of whether disclosure would cause any measurable harm?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's permissive conclusion — allowing Engineer A to join Company Y provided she withholds Company X's information — adequately account for the systemic harm to regulatory integrity if government engineers routinely transition to competitors with privileged knowledge of confidential submissions, even when individual disclosure is avoided?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does an engineer of genuine professional integrity merely refrain from disclosing confidential information, or does virtuous conduct require Engineer A to proactively recuse herself from any work at Company Y that could benefit from — even subconsciously — the structural knowledge of Company X's design approaches she accumulated during government service?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's obligation to disclose the conflict of interest to Company Y before accepting employment — as the Board requires — also entail a duty to disclose the same potential conflict to Company X, whose proprietary information is at risk, given that Company X is the party whose interests are most directly threatened by the employment transition?
If Engineer A had accepted employment with Company Y without disclosing her prior government access to Company X's confidential design information, and Company Y subsequently assigned her to a project directly competing with Company X's approved facility design, would the Board's analysis have shifted from a conditional permission to an outright prohibition — and what specific triggering threshold would mark that transition?
What if the government agency had included an explicit revolving-door clause in Engineer A's employment contract prohibiting post-employment work for competitors of companies whose confidential submissions she reviewed — would Engineer A's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code have been strengthened, weakened, or simply made more legally enforceable, and does the absence of such a clause diminish her ethical duties?
If, analogous to BER Case 85-4, Company X later became involved in an adversarial regulatory or legal proceeding against Company Y and Engineer A was asked by Company Y to provide technical analysis drawing on her general expertise in the relevant facility design domain — without explicitly referencing Company X's confidential submissions — would the switching-sides prohibition recognized in BER Case 85-4 apply, and would Engineer A's claimed ignorance of the conflict serve as any mitigation?
What if Company Y had specifically recruited Engineer A because of her government-acquired knowledge of Company X's design strategies — making the competitive intelligence value of her access an explicit factor in the hiring decision — would the Board's conclusion permitting the employment transition still hold, and what additional obligations would arise for both Engineer A and Company Y under the NSPE Code?
Creation of potential conflict-of-interest scenarios if she joins a competitor of any company whose information she reviewed
Separation from the institutional context that originally justified her access to confidential information
Triggering of ongoing confidentiality obligations regarding Company X's proprietary information
Right to professional mobility and freedom of employment
Engineer's right to pursue professional advancement
Faithful agency and trusteeship obligations that survive employment termination
Transition out of government employment, presumably to pursue better career opportunities in the private sector
Awareness of confidentiality duties that survive employment
Self-assessment of post-employment ethical obligations
Engineer A voluntarily ends her employment with the government agency, a deliberate career decision that activates and crystallizes her post-employment ethical obligations regarding the confidential information she accumulated during her tenure.
Resign from Government Agency (Action 2) + Accept Position at Competitor (Action 3) → Competitive Conflict Situation Arises (Event 2)
Upon Engineer A accepting a position at Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, a conflict of interest situation arises as a direct consequence of her resignation and entry into competitive employment
Resign from Government Agency (Action 2) + Accept Position at Competitor (Action 3)
Had Engineer A accepted a position at a non-competing firm or in a different industry sector, the competitive conflict would not have materialized; had she not accumulated confidential knowledge, the move would have been ethically unproblematic
Affirmative acceptance of employment at Company Y, a direct competitor
Company Y operating in the same competitive space as Company X
Prior accumulation of Company X confidential knowledge (Event 1)
Voluntary resignation from the neutral government agency role
Accumulated confidential knowledge + departure from neutral role + entry into direct competitor employment = sufficient to generate a fully realized conflict of interest
Government ethics statutes and professional engineering norms
Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in evaluating permissibility of new employment
Provides policy framework governing the movement of Engineer A from a government regulatory agency — where she had privileged access to competitors' proprietary design information — into private employment with a direct competitor, addressing the risk of exploiting insider regulatory access
Transitional Employment Ethics Framework
Engineer A and ethics reviewers analyzing the post-employment conflict
Governs the ethical obligations applicable to Engineer A as she transitions from a public regulatory agency role to a private-sector position with a competitor of a company whose confidential information she accessed in her official capacity
Withhold Company X Confidential Information
Ongoing cognitive and professional burden of self-monitoring knowledge boundaries
Possible disadvantage to Company Y if Engineer A must recuse herself from certain competitive analyses
Potential limitation on the full scope of contributions Engineer A can make to Company Y
Duty to serve as faithful agent and trustee respecting the trust placed in her by Company X through the regulatory process
NSPE Code obligation not to disclose confidential information about former clients or employers without consent
Obligation to avoid conduct that could appear to improperly influence professional judgment
Confidentiality as a foundational engineering ethical obligation
Faithful agency and trusteeship to former indirect clients
Integrity and honesty in professional conduct
Honor residual confidentiality obligations to Company X while fulfilling duties to new employer Company Y, maintaining professional integrity and compliance with NSPE Code
Ability to distinguish between general industry expertise and specific confidential knowledge about Company X
Capacity to recuse or limit involvement in matters where Company X's confidential information would be materially relevant
Ethical self-regulation and ongoing professional judgment
Ongoing throughout employment at Company Y and potentially indefinitely thereafter
Potential partial limitation of full faithful agency to new employer Company Y if withholding creates gaps in her contributions
Engineer A must make continuous, ongoing decisions throughout her employment at Company Y not to disclose the confidential and proprietary design information she learned about Company X during her government tenure. This is framed by the BER as the primary and non-negotiable ethical obligation arising from the case.
Withhold Company X Confidential Information (Action 4) → Ethical Compliance Maintained Under Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation (Event 3 resolution)
Engineer A must make continuous, ongoing decisions throughout her employment at Company Y not to disclose confidential information, with each decision representing an affirmative ethical choice that either satisfies or violates her perpetual confidentiality obligation
Withhold Company X Confidential Information (Action 4)
Without continuous, affirmative non-disclosure decisions, Engineer A's mere possession of confidential knowledge combined with competitive employment would likely result in inadvertent or deliberate disclosure; passive non-action is insufficient given the active competitive pressures of the new role
Ethical Compliance Maintained Under Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation (Event 3 resolution)
Active volitional choice in each instance to withhold rather than share
Engineer A's ongoing awareness of what information is confidential
Repeated situational opportunities or pressures to disclose at Company Y
Sufficient professional knowledge to distinguish confidential from non-confidential information
Continuous awareness of confidential information + repeated non-disclosure decisions + no coercive disclosure pressure = sufficient for ongoing ethical compliance
companies submitting confidential design information before Engineer A gaining access to that information
Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs.
companies submitting confidential design information
Engineer A gaining access to that information
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
The engineer retained by the US government to study the causes of a dam failure was prohibited from agreeing to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam — who had filed a claim against the US government — absent the consent of the former client (the US government), because the prior engagement created specialized knowledge that could not ethically be deployed against the former client.
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
The conflict is resolved through the constraint that confidential information not be disclosed or used, rather than through prohibition of competitive employment
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
The Board held that the confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the former client (plaintiff's attorney) created an absolute bar to switching sides in the same proceeding, overriding Engineer A's professional autonomy to accept the new engagement
Disclosure of the existence of the conflict (prior access to competitor's confidential information) is required even if the specific content of the confidential information cannot be disclosed
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
The prohibition applies to work that would exploit the specialized knowledge of Company X's designs gained through the regulatory relationship; general engineering work for Company Y that does not draw on Company X's confidential information may be permissible
Loyalty to Company Y must be discharged through Engineer A's general engineering competence and knowledge, not through exploitation of Company X's confidential regulatory submissions
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The post-public-service conflict avoidance principle requires at minimum full disclosure to Company Y of the prior access to Company X's confidential information, and may require recusal from work involving Company X or declining the employment altogether
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
The Board explicitly states Engineer A should not be 'unduly limited or penalized' for accepting competitive employment, resolving the tension in favor of professional mobility subject to the confidentiality constraint
The Board resolves the tension by permitting competitive employment while maintaining the confidentiality constraint, establishing that the two obligations are compatible rather than mutually exclusive
General engineering knowledge and skills are portable; specific confidential information about Company X's proprietary designs obtained through the regulatory process is not, and Engineer A must maintain a strict separation between the two
Confidentiality obligations to Company X's proprietary information persist after employment ends and are not dissolved by the engineer's transition to private employment with a competitor
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
The regulatory trust relationship creates a categorical prohibition on competitive use of submitted proprietary information that cannot be overridden by subsequent employment relationships
Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and thereby gaining access to plaintiff's confidential information and documents, was prohibited from subsequently accepting retention by defendant's attorney in the same case — even
The Board explicitly declines to specify how long the post-relationship duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, acknowledging that this is a context-dependent question that cannot be resolved by a fixed rule
Engineer A's access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information during government agency employment creates a confidentiality obligation that prohibits disclosure or competitive exploitation of that information after leav
Engineer A's duty to maintain confidentiality of Company X's information is rooted in the obligation to serve as a faithful agent and trustee to the government agency employer, which was itself entrusted with Company X's confidential inform
The government agency's receipt of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information for regulatory purposes creates an obligation to protect that information from competitive exploitation — an obligation that extends to Engineer
Engineer A, having accessed Company X's confidential and proprietary design information during government agency employment, is prohibited from disclosing or using that information after joining Company Y — but is not prohibited from the em
Engineer A's transition from a government agency role with access to Company X's proprietary regulatory submissions to a private engineering position with Company Y — Company X's direct competitor — implicates revolving door integrity oblig
Engineer A's acceptance of employment with Company Y — a direct competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A accessed during public service — creates a post-public-service conflict that Engineer A must recognize, disclo
Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — gained while Company X was a submitting party to the government agency — creates a bar on Engineer A participating in work for Company Y that is adve
Engineer A's access to Company X's confidential information creates a potential conflict of interest in employment with Company Y — the ethical management of this conflict is through confidentiality maintenance rather than prohibition of em
Engineer A's simultaneous knowledge of Company X's confidential proprietary designs (from prior government employment) and employment with Company Y (Company X's competitor) constitutes a conflict of interest that must be disclosed to Compa
Engineer A's new employment relationship with Company Y creates a loyalty obligation to serve Company Y's interests faithfully, but this loyalty obligation is bounded by the prior confidentiality obligations owed to Company X and cannot ext
Engineer A retains the professional right to accept employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, without this constituting an ethical violation — the prior relationship with Company X through the government agency does not c
Engineer A's receipt of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information in the course of the government agency's regulatory approval process creates a specific obligation to protect that information from competitive exploitation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) after having been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) in the same personal injury litigation, because Engineer A had accessed confiden
Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before terminating the engagement and before accepting any retention by the opposing party, so that Attorney Z had the opportunity to address Engineer A's concern
Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Company Y, prior to or upon accepting employment, that Engineer A had accessed confidential and proprietary design information from Company X — a direct competitor of Company Y — during go
Engineer A is obligated to comply with the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management — which requires prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts of interest to employers or clients, including any business associ
Engineer A is permitted to accept employment with Company Y (a competitor of Company X) but is obligated to refrain from disclosing or using any confidential and proprietary design information about Company X that Engineer A accessed during
Company Y is obligated to refrain from exploiting the competitive advantage created by hiring Engineer A — specifically, Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions — including refraining from assigning Engi
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining Engineer A was the belief that Engineer A would provide a favorable report for the defendant — informed by Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidentia
Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the confidential information, documents, and facts obtained from plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney during the first engagement, even after termination of that engagement, and to refrain from
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from using, disclosing, or exploiting Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — accessed during government agency employment — in the course of employment at Company Y, a direct competi
Engineer A, having received Company X's confidential and proprietary design information in the course of the government agency's regulatory approval process, is obligated to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure or use — inc
Engineer A is obligated to protect Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — received in the course of the government agency's regulatory approval process — from unauthorized disclosure or use, including refraining from
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from participating in activities at Company Y that are adverse to Company X's interests and that would exploit or be informed by the confidential and proprietary design information accessed during governme
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from participating in any work at Company Y that is adverse to Company X's interests and that would exploit or be informed by the confidential design information accessed during government agency employmen
Engineer A was obligated, prior to accepting employment at Company Y, to assess whether the competitive relationship between Company Y and Company X — combined with Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submission
termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z (BER 85-4) before Attorney X retaining Engineer A for the defendant
Engineer A's services were terminated and his fee was paid in full. Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learned of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and sought to retain Engineer A.
termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z (BER 85-4)
Attorney X retaining Engineer A for the defendant
BER 82-6 Engineer US Government Dam Failure Contractor Retention Bar
Engineer retained by US government to study dam failure causes subsequently sought by contractor adverse to the government in a compensation claim
Engineer retained by US government (BER Case No. 82-6)
Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint
BER Case No. 82-6; NSPE Code Section III.4.b
Post-completion of government retention, during pendency of contractor's claim against the government
BER 82-6 Engineer US Government Dam Failure Switching Sides
Engineer was retained by US government to study dam failure causes; contractor involved in dam construction filed a claim against the US government for additional compensation; engineer was approached to represent contractor's interests.
Engineer retained by US government in BER Case 82-6
Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Obligation
The engineer retained by the US government to study the causes of a dam failure was obligated to refrain from agreeing to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam — who had filed a claim against the US government — without the consent of the former client (the US government).
Upon being approached by the contractor to represent its interests against the US government
Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
{'entity_type': 'Private engineering company', 'competitive_relationship': 'Direct competitor of Company X', 'hiring_context': "Recruited former government agency engineer with access to competitor's proprietary information"}
Company Y hired Engineer A, a former government agency engineer who had access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by Company X, a direct competitor of Company Y.
{'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company'}
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer'}
Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Attorney Z's Client — BER Case 85-4
From termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z and full fee payment through Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X
Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation State
Engineer A's continuing ethical obligation of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney after formal termination of the retainer and full fee payment
Not terminated — the continuing duty of trust and loyalty persisted through Engineer A's cross-side retention, which the Board found unethical
How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, the Board is not prepared to state at this time
the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
Termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z with full fee payment, leaving Engineer A in possession of confidential information and facts gained during cooperative access
Engineer A Government Regulatory Access to Confidential Submissions
From the time Engineer A received access to confidential submissions during government employment, continuing through and after departure from the agency
Engineer A's possession of confidential and proprietary design information submitted by Company X and other companies to the government agency
Not terminated — confidentiality obligations persist post-employment
Engineer A's receipt of access to confidential and proprietary design information from companies seeking government approval, including Company X
Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Acknowledged by Board
Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
The Board's refusal to specify duration reflects the open-textured nature of confidentiality obligations — the duty persists for as long as the information remains sensitive and the potential for harm from disclosure exists, which is inherently case-specific
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Principle
The Board leaves the duration question open, implicitly requiring engineers to err on the side of continued confidentiality when the temporal scope of the obligation is uncertain
Engineer A Confidential Information Held — Government Agency Context
From Engineer A's access to Company X's information during government employment through Engineer A's transition to Company Y and beyond
Engineer A's possession of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information acquired through government agency employment
Not terminated — obligation to protect information persists regardless of employment transition
Government agency's receipt of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information for regulatory review, to which Engineer A had access during employment
Engineer A Conflict of Interest — Cross-Side Adversarial Retention BER 85-4
From Attorney X's approach to Engineer A through Engineer A's agreement to provide report for defendant
In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical
Engineer A's conflict between obligations to former plaintiff client and acceptance of retention by defendant's attorney in the same proceeding
Not properly resolved — Engineer A accepted the conflicted retention; proper resolution would have been declination
Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events
the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client
Attorney X's solicitation of Engineer A to provide engineering analysis for defendant in the same case where Engineer A had previously been retained by plaintiff's attorney
Engineer A Cross-Side Retention After Plaintiff Confidential Access — BER Case 85-4
From Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z through Engineer A's agreement to provide report for Attorney X in the same case
Engineer A, throughout his first analysis, had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
Engineer A's structural conflict arising from cooperative confidential access to plaintiff's information followed by retention by defendant's attorney in the same proceeding
Not properly terminated — Engineer A accepted the cross-side retention, which the Board found unethical; proper termination would have been Engineer A's declination of Attorney X's retention
The Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind
it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client
Attorney X's retention of Engineer A to provide engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant after Engineer A had gained cooperative confidential access to plaintiff's documents during prior retention
Engineer A Full Discussion With Attorney Z Obligation
Engineer A determined findings would be unfavorable to plaintiff and terminated the engagement without fully discussing the ethical implications with Attorney Z, then accepted retention by opposing counsel.
Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before terminating the engagement and before accepting any retention by the opposing party, so that Attorney Z had the opportunity to address Engineer A's concerns or otherwise resolve the conflict.
Upon determining that findings would be unfavorable to plaintiff and before terminating engagement with Attorney Z
Engineer A Government Agency Confidential Access to Company X Information
From Engineer A's access to Company X's confidential information during government employment through Engineer A's transition to and employment with Company Y
Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y, provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A's employment with the government agency
Competitor Employment Post-Government Access State
Engineer A's retention of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information gained during government agency employment
Not terminated — obligation persists; employment transition to Company Y is permitted but confidential information must not be disclosed
Engineer A's government agency employment entrusted her with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information submitted for regulatory review
Engineer A Post-Employment Conflict — Company Y Competitor Employment
From Engineer A's departure from government agency through Engineer A's employment with Company Y
Post-Employment Conflict of Interest State
Engineer A's transition from government agency employment to private employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A holds
Partially mitigated by the condition that Engineer A not disclose Company X's confidential information; not fully terminated as the structural conflict persists throughout employment
Engineer A should not be unduly limited or penalized for accepting a position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X
Engineer A's pursuit of employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, after having had access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information during government employment
From the time Engineer A accepts the Company Y position, persisting as an inertial ethical condition
Engineer A's movement from a government agency role — in which she exercised regulatory approval authority and received confidential industry submissions — to private employment with a firm in the regulated industry
Formal ethical resolution, recusal, or passage of time sufficient to mitigate the conflict
Engineer A's acceptance of private-sector employment with Company Y following government regulatory employment
Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation Grounding Engineer A's Duty
Engineer A's duty to maintain confidentiality of Company X's information is rooted in the obligation to serve as a faithful agent and trustee to the government agency employer, which was itself entrusted with Company X's confidential information — creating a chain of fiduciary obligation
The faithful agent obligation to the government agency employer extends to protecting the confidential information the agency was entrusted with, creating a derivative obligation to Company X that runs through the agency relationship
Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
The engineer's duty in this area is rooted in the obligation to serve as a faithful agent and trustee to the client or employer, and also the obligation to avoid circumstances that could appear to influence the engineer's professional judgment
The faithful agent obligation is satisfied by maintaining confidentiality while permitting competitive employment — the two are compatible
Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A to Company Y Within Ethical Limits
Engineer A's employment relationship with Company Y
Engineer A's new employment relationship with Company Y creates a loyalty obligation to serve Company Y's interests faithfully, but this loyalty obligation is bounded by the prior confidentiality obligations owed to Company X and cannot extend to exploiting Company X's proprietary information for Company Y's competitive benefit
Loyalty to Company Y is a genuine professional obligation but operates within the ethical constraint that Engineer A cannot fulfill that loyalty through means that violate prior confidentiality obligations — the loyalty obligation is bounded, not absolute
Company Y AE Firm Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Regarding Company X Information
Company Y hired Engineer A, a former government agency engineer with access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions, creating a risk that Company Y would exploit that access for competitive advantage against Company X.
AE Firm Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Obligation
Company Y is obligated to refrain from exploiting the competitive advantage created by hiring Engineer A — specifically, Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions — including refraining from assigning Engineer A to projects or competitive activities where Company X's confidential information would provide an unfair advantage, and from using Engineer A's insider knowledge of Company X's proprietary designs to gain competitive advantage.
Ongoing from the date of hiring Engineer A
Engineer A Post-Public-Service Competitor Employment Conflict Avoidance
Engineer A transitioned from a government agency role with access to Company X's confidential information to employment at Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, without documented disclosure or conflict management.
Post-Public-Service Competitor Employment Conflict Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, prior to accepting employment at Company Y, to assess whether the competitive relationship between Company Y and Company X — combined with Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions — created a conflict of interest that should have precluded acceptance of the position or required disclosure and conflict management measures before acceptance.
At the time of accepting employment at Company Y and on an ongoing basis throughout that employment
Confidentiality Obligation Invoked for Company X Information Held by Engineer A
Engineer A, having accessed Company X's confidential and proprietary design information during government agency employment, is prohibited from disclosing or using that information after joining Company Y — but is not prohibited from the employment itself
The confidentiality obligation is tied specifically to the information accessed during public employment, not to the employment relationship itself — Engineer A may compete but may not weaponize the confidential knowledge
Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Prohibition
Engineer A Client Relationship with Company Y
From Engineer A's acceptance of the Company Y position onward
Engineer A's new employment relationship with Company Y, which is a competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A previously accessed
Termination of employment with Company Y or formal recusal
Engineer A accepts an engineering position with Company Y
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Forensic engineering and safety analysis', 'prior_engagement': "Plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z)", 'subsequent_engagement': "Defendant's attorney (Attorney X)"}
Initially retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; terminated after determining findings would be unfavorable to plaintiff; subsequently retained by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) to provide a separate and independent analysis — an action the BER found unethical due to confidential information gained during the first engagement.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Attorney X Defendant Counsel Client'}
{'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff Counsel Client'}
{'type': 'subject_matter', 'target': 'Personal injury litigation'}
Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
Engineer A, a forensic engineer, was hired as a consultant by Attorney Z
Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learned of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report
Engineer A determined that he could not provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
Engineer A Post-Employment Conflict of Interest
From Engineer A's departure from the government agency and acceptance of the Company Y position, persisting as an inertial conflict state
Engineer A's transition from government regulatory employment — where she held approval authority and access to competitor submissions — to private employment with a competitor firm
Passage of sufficient time, formal ethical clearance, or recusal from conflicted matters
Engineer A's departure from government employment and immediate acceptance of position with Company Y
Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Applied to Company X Information
The government agency's receipt of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information for regulatory purposes creates an obligation to protect that information from competitive exploitation — an obligation that extends to Engineer A as an employee of the agency
The regulatory submission context creates a heightened confidentiality obligation because Company X submitted the information in reliance on the agency's duty to use it solely for regulatory purposes, not to benefit competitors
Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Obligation
The regulatory submission confidentiality obligation is satisfied by Engineer A's non-disclosure constraint, which preserves the competitive integrity of Company X's proprietary information while permitting Engineer A's employment with Company Y
Under the facts, consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X
Revolving Door Integrity Invoked By Engineer A Government-to-Private Transition
Engineer A's use of knowledge gained during government agency employment in subsequent private employment with Company Y
Professional competence and knowledge portability
Engineer A's transition from a government agency role with access to Company X's proprietary regulatory submissions to a private engineering position with Company Y — Company X's direct competitor — implicates revolving door integrity obligations requiring Engineer A to abstain from leveraging insider knowledge of Company X's confidential designs to benefit Company Y
The revolving door integrity principle prohibits Engineer A from using privileged access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions — obtained through the public agency role — to provide competitive intelligence or design advantages to Company Y
Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities.
Competitive Employment Freedom Invoked for Engineer A Joining Company Y
Engineer A retains the professional right to accept employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, without this constituting an ethical violation — the prior relationship with Company X through the government agency does not create a perpetual bar to competitive employment
The engineer's professional autonomy and right to pursue career opportunities is preserved even in competitive contexts, subject to the constraint that confidential information from the prior relationship is not disclosed or used
Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
Conflict of Interest Avoidance Through Confidentiality Maintenance
Engineer A's access to Company X's confidential information creates a potential conflict of interest in employment with Company Y — the ethical management of this conflict is through confidentiality maintenance rather than prohibition of employment, reflecting the profession's evolved approach to conflict management
The conflict arising from prior confidential access is managed through behavioral constraints (non-disclosure) rather than categorical prohibition of employment, consistent with the profession's shift from absolute avoidance to disclosure-and-management
The aforementioned cases represent the longstanding BER positions relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another
Obviously, the appropriate ethical course of action is dictated by the particular facts and circumstances of a case
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to Company Y Regarding Company X Access
Engineer A accepted employment at Company Y without documented disclosure of prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure to New Private Employer Regarding Prior Government Access Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Company Y, prior to or upon accepting employment, that Engineer A had accessed confidential and proprietary design information from Company X — a direct competitor of Company Y — during government agency employment, so that Company Y could implement appropriate conflict management measures and avoid inadvertently exploiting Engineer A's prior regulatory access.
At or before the time of accepting employment at Company Y
Engineer A Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation Company X
Engineer A accessed Company X's confidential regulatory submission information during government employment and subsequently joined Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, creating risk that the confidential information could be used adversely against Company X.
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from participating in activities at Company Y that are adverse to Company X's interests and that would exploit or be informed by the confidential and proprietary design information accessed during government agency employment.
Ongoing throughout employment with Company Y
Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness
Attorney X learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination by plaintiff's counsel and sought to retain Engineer A specifically because of those circumstances, believing Engineer A would provide a favorable report for the defendant.
Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining Engineer A was the belief that Engineer A would provide a favorable report for the defendant — informed by Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidential information — and to decline retention on that basis.
'Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination,' the Board noted, 'this would not excuse his actions.'
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance
Engineer A's simultaneous knowledge of Company X's confidential proprietary designs (from prior government employment) and employment with Company Y (a competitor of Company X) creates a conflict of interest requiring disclosure under the evolved NSPE standard.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to comply with the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management — which requires prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts of interest to employers or clients, including any business association, interest, or circumstance that could influence or appear to influence the engineer's judgment — by disclosing to Company Y the prior access to Company X's confidential information and the resulting conflict of interest created by employment at a direct competitor.
At or before the time of accepting employment at Company Y and on an ongoing basis
Engineer A Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Company X
Engineer A worked for a government agency entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information as part of a regulatory approval process; Engineer A subsequently joined Company Y.
Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection by Government Engineer Obligation
Engineer A, having received Company X's confidential and proprietary design information in the course of the government agency's regulatory approval process, is obligated to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure or use — including refraining from using it for the benefit of Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
Ongoing from the time of accessing Company X's information through all subsequent employment
Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance Invoked By Engineer A Transition to Company Y
Engineer A's employment transition from government agency to Company Y
Engineer's right to pursue private employment
Engineer A's acceptance of employment with Company Y — a direct competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A accessed during public service — creates a post-public-service conflict that Engineer A must recognize, disclose, and manage to avoid improper competitive advantage
The prior public relationship with Company X's confidential regulatory submissions creates an appearance and reality of improper competitive advantage if Engineer A joins Company Y without disclosure and appropriate safeguards
Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Access to Company X Information
Company X's confidential and proprietary design information
Engineer A's subsequent employment with Company Y
Engineer's professional knowledge and career mobility
Engineer A's receipt of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information in the course of the government agency's regulatory approval process creates a specific obligation to protect that information from competitive exploitation — an obligation that persists after Engineer A's departure from the agency
The regulatory submission context creates a trust relationship between the submitting company and the government agency — and by extension the agency's engineers — that prohibits those engineers from using the submitted information for any purpose other than the regulatory evaluation for which it was submitted
Confidentiality Obligation of Engineer A Toward Company X Regulatory Submissions
Company X's confidential and proprietary design information submitted to the government agency
Engineer A's access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information during government agency employment creates a confidentiality obligation that prohibits disclosure or competitive exploitation of that information after leaving the agency
In this context, confidentiality requires Engineer A to treat Company X's proprietary design information as protected from disclosure to or use by Company Y, regardless of the change in employment status, because the information was received in a relationship of regulatory trust
Engineer A Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation
Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions creates a prohibition on adverse participation at Company Y that mirrors the former client adversarial participation prohibition.
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from participating in any work at Company Y that is adverse to Company X's interests and that would exploit or be informed by the confidential design information accessed during government agency employment, unless Company X has provided informed consent to such participation.
Ongoing from the date of accepting employment at Company Y; applies to all projects and activities at Company Y that implicate Company X's confidential information
Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A Company X Knowledge
Engineer A's work for Company Y in competition with Company X
Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — gained while Company X was a submitting party to the government agency — creates a bar on Engineer A participating in work for Company Y that is adverse to Company X and that draws on the specialized knowledge gained through that prior regulatory relationship
While Company X was not technically Engineer A's client, the regulatory submission relationship created a functionally analogous specialized knowledge relationship — Engineer A gained particular knowledge of Company X's proprietary designs that creates a conflict analogous to the former-client adversarial participation prohibition
Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
Engineer A Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Post-Termination
Engineer A had access to plaintiff's confidential information and documents during the first engagement; after termination, Engineer A accepted retention by opposing counsel in the same matter, raising the question of whether the confidential information could be compartmentalized.
Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the confidential information, documents, and facts obtained from plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney during the first engagement, even after termination of that engagement, and to refrain from using or disclosing that information in any subsequent engagement — including the engagement with Attorney X.
Ongoing from termination of engagement with Attorney Z through any subsequent professional activities related to the same matter
The Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one.'
Engineer A Post-Government Competitor Employment Conflict
From the moment Engineer A accepts the position with Company Y, persisting indefinitely unless formally resolved through recusal, disclosure, or other ethical mitigation
Engineer A's structural conflict arising from accepting employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, after having accessed Company X's confidential design information in a government regulatory role
Formal recusal from relevant work, full disclosure and employer-sanctioned ethical management, or other formal resolution
Engineer A's acceptance of an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X, following departure from the government agency
Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use
Engineer A worked for a government agency with access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions, then accepted employment at Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from using, disclosing, or exploiting Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — accessed during government agency employment — in the course of employment at Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, recognizing that the confidentiality obligation created during public service survives the termination of that employment.
Ongoing from the moment of accepting employment at Company Y; no expiration unless the information enters the public domain through independent means
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle Invoked By Engineer A Dual Relationship
Engineer A's transition from government agency to Company Y employment
Confidentiality of the fact of Company X's submissions
Engineer A's simultaneous knowledge of Company X's confidential proprietary designs (from prior government employment) and employment with Company Y (Company X's competitor) constitutes a conflict of interest that must be disclosed to Company Y and potentially to Company X or the government agency
The conflict of interest between Engineer A's prior access to Company X's confidential information and current employment with Company X's competitor requires disclosure and management — the modern disclosure-and-management standard requires Engineer A to surface the conflict rather than silently manage it
Engineer A Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection
Engineer A received Company X's confidential regulatory submissions as a government agency engineer and subsequently accepted employment at Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
Engineer A is obligated to protect Company X's confidential and proprietary design information — received in the course of the government agency's regulatory approval process — from unauthorized disclosure or use, including refraining from using it for the benefit of Company Y in any competitive context, recognizing that the government agency's receipt of confidential submissions created a trust relationship with Company X that Engineer A is obligated to honor.
Ongoing from the date of access to Company X's confidential information; survives termination of government employment
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides Prohibition
Engineer A was initially retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; after determining findings would be unfavorable to plaintiff, Engineer A's services were terminated; defendant's attorney (Attorney X) then sought to retain Engineer A for a 'separate and independent' analysis in the same case.
Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) after having been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) in the same personal injury litigation, because Engineer A had accessed confidential information and documents belonging to the plaintiff during the first engagement that could not be erased from professional judgment.
Upon being approached by Attorney X following termination by Attorney Z
Engineer A agreed to provide the report.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'employer_type': 'Government agency', 'information_access': 'Confidential and proprietary facility design submissions from regulated companies', 'transition': 'Government agency to private sector competitor'}
Engineer A worked for a government agency with access to confidential and proprietary design information from private companies including Company X, then left to join Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X, creating a conflict between confidentiality obligations and new employment.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Government Agency'}
{'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Company Y'}
{'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Company X'}
Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities
Switching Sides Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Forensic Expert Role in BER Case 85-4
Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and thereby gaining access to plaintiff's confidential information and documents, was prohibited from subsequently accepting retention by defendant's attorney in the same case — even after formal termination of the first engagement
The prohibition applies because Engineer A could not credibly 'blot out' the confidential information from the first engagement, and the defendant's attorney's motivation for hiring Engineer A was precisely the knowledge gained in that first engagement
the Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one' in performing his engineering and safety analysis report
Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z
Engineer A Government-to-Private Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint
Engineer A worked for a government agency with access to Company X's confidential and proprietary design information; Engineer A subsequently accepted employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X.
Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Obligation
Engineer A is permitted to accept employment with Company Y (a competitor of Company X) but is obligated to refrain from disclosing or using any confidential and proprietary design information about Company X that Engineer A accessed during government agency employment.
Upon accepting employment with Company Y and throughout the duration of that employment