ProEthica Case 106 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905163
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Position at Competitor
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Accept Retention by Defendant's Attorney (BER 85-4)
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Accept Retention by Opposing Party (BER 82-6)
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Accept Retention by Opposing Party (BER 82-6) (Action 5) → Engineer Retained By Opposing Party (BER 82-6) (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Access Confidential Design Information
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Access Confidential Design Information (Action 1) → Confidential Knowledge Accumulated (Event 1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Adversarial_Proceeding_Conflict_of_Interest_Standard_Competitor_Context
type: AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies and BER precedent
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
usedby: Ethics reviewers drawing analogical reasoning from adversarial conflict standards to the regulatory-to-competitor employment scenario
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.910735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Attorney X Defendant Counsel Client
type: DefenseAttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role': "Defendant's attorney", 'matter': 'Personal injury litigation'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_party_counsel', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff Counsel Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_expert', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.912473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Attorney Z Plaintiff Counsel Client
type: AttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role': "Plaintiff's attorney", 'matter': 'Personal injury litigation'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_party_counsel', 'target': 'Attorney X Defendant Counsel Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_expert', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: Engineer A's services were terminated and his fee was paid in full
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.911801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER 82-6 Dam Failure Engineer Switching Sides Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition
type: AdverseRetentionMotivationRecognitionandEthicalResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 82-6 Engineer (US Government Dam Failure)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.909088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER 82-6 Engineer US Government Dam Failure Contractor Retention Bar
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer retained by US government to study dam failure causes subsequently sought by contractor adverse to the government in a compensation claim
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer retained by US government (BER Case No. 82-6)
constraintclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 82-6; NSPE Code Section III.4.b
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Post-completion of government retention, during pendency of contractor's claim against the government
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.919812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER 82-6 Engineer US Government Dam Failure Switching Sides
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer retained by US government in BER Case 82-6
obligationclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: 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).
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon being approached by the contractor to represent its interests against the US government
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.919529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Case No. 74-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 74-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in current case analysis
usedincontext: 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
version: 1974
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.912075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Case No. 74-2 before BER Case No. 82-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Case No. 82-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 82-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in current case analysis
usedincontext: 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
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.912210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Case No. 82-6 before BER Case No. 85-4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Case No. 85-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 85-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in current case analysis
usedincontext: 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
version: 1985
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.912342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Case No. 85-4 before current Engineer A case
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER_Case_Precedent_Confidentiality_PostEmployment
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Confidentiality and Post-Employment Obligations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
usedby: Ethics reviewers conducting analogical analysis of Engineer A's situation
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.907458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Precedent Framework Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

BER Precedent Framework Established (Event 4) → Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated (Event 3) — normative grounding
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Case 106 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.922037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Position at Competitor
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Retention by Defendant'
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Retention by Opposing P
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

CausalLink_Access Confidential Design Inf
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

CausalLink_Decline Favorable Plaintiff Re
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

CausalLink_Resign from Government Agency
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

CausalLink_Withhold Company X Confidentia
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
type: ConfidentialDesignInformationSubmittingCompany
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private company', 'information_submitted': 'Confidential and proprietary facility design information', 'competitive_exposure': 'Proprietary designs accessible to Engineer A who joined direct competitor'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:24.975472+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:24.975472+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company'}
relationships: {'type': 'confidential_information_source_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_submission_to', 'target': 'Government Agency'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
sourcetext: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.913270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Company Y AE Firm Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Regarding Company X Information
type: AEFirmIncumbentAdvantageNon-ExploitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Company Y
obligationclass: AE Firm Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the date of hiring Engineer A
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.915055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
type: Competitor-EmployingPrivateEngineeringCompany
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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"}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:24.975472+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:24.975472+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.913397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Company Y Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation
type: CompetitorFirmIncumbentInformationAdvantageNon-ExploitationOrganizationalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation Organizational Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Company Y
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.917424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Company Y Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation Organizational
type: CompetitorFirmIncumbentInformationAdvantageNon-ExploitationOrganizationalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation Organizational Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Current case: Company Y hiring Engineer A, a former government agency engineer with access to Company X's confidential design information.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Company Y
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.908811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Company Y Non-Exploitation of Engineer A's Prior Government Access to Company X Information
type: Post-Public-EmploymentCompetitorNon-ExploitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Company Y
constraintclass: Post-Public-Employment Competitor Non-Exploitation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6; Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's employment with Company Y, ongoing
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.916260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Competitive Conflict Situation Arises
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Competitive Conflict Situation Arises (Event 2) → Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Competitive Employment Freedom Invoked for Engineer A Joining Company Y
type: AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
appliedto: Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
balancingwith: Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Prohibition
balancingwith: Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
sourcetext: Engineer A should not be unduly limited or penalized for accepting a position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Engineer A should not be unduly limited or penalized for accepting a position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.918241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
cited provision4: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
cited provision4: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.599997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: III.4.a.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.600933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.601043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
cited provision4: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.601208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Confidential Knowledge Accumulated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Acknowledged by Board
type: ConfidentialityDurationIndeterminacyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Attorney Z Plaintiff Counsel Client
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Principle
sourcetext: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, the Board is not prepared to state at this time
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, the Board is not prepared to state at this time
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.906357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Confidentiality Obligation Invoked for Company X Information Held by Engineer A
type: Post-Public-EmploymentConfidentialInformationNon-UseProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
appliedto: Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Prohibition
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.918094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Confidentiality Obligation of Engineer A Toward Company X Regulatory Submissions
type: Confidentiality
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X's confidential and proprietary design information submitted to the government agency
balancingwith: Engineer's professional mobility
balancingwith: Loyalty to new employer Company Y
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.913698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Avoidance Through Confidentiality Maintenance
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
appliedto: Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
balancingwith: Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: The conflict is resolved through the constraint that confidential information not be disclosed or used, rather than through prohibition of competitive employment
textreferences: Obviously, the appropriate ethical course of action is dictated by the particular facts and circumstances of a case
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.906696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle Invoked By Engineer A Dual Relationship
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's transition from government agency to Company Y employment
balancingwith: Confidentiality of the fact of Company X's submissions
balancingwith: Engineer's privacy interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.909583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A accept employment at Company Y, and if so, what obligations must she fulfill before accepting?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
option3: 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
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
option3: 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
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
option3: 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
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
option3: 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
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.594977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
option3: 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
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
option3: 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
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report (BER 85-4)
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report (BER 85-4) (Action 6) → Favorable Report Opportunity Foreclosed (BER 85-4) (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Non-Participation Scope Determination at Company Y
type: AdversarialNon-ParticipationScopeDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adversarial Non-Participation Scope Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.917290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness
type: AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon being approached by Attorney X
textreferences: '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.'
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.918689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition
type: AdverseRetentionMotivationRecognitionandEthicalResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The Board further noted that Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.920733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship with Company Y
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acceptance of the Company Y position onward
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's new employment relationship with Company Y, which is a competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A previously accessed
terminatedby: Termination of employment with Company Y or formal recusal
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepts an engineering position with Company Y
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.911472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information Held — Government Agency Context
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's access to Company X's information during government employment through Engineer A's transition to Company Y and beyond
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A's possession of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information acquired through government agency employment
terminatedby: Not terminated — obligation to protect information persists regardless of employment transition
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Government agency's receipt of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information for regulatory review, to which Engineer A had access during employment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition
type: ConfidentialInformationMentalSegregationImpossibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.920871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Regulatory Submission Information Boundary Recognition
type: ConfidentialRegulatorySubmissionInformationBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Regulatory Submission Information Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.916867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
type: Confidentiality-BoundGovernmentAgencyEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:24.975472+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:24.975472+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Government Agency'}
relationships: {'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Company Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Company X'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
textreferences: Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.907602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: At or before the time of accepting employment at Company Y and on an ongoing basis
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.915189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to Company Y Regarding Company X Access
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosuretoNewPrivateEmployerRegardingPriorGovernmentAccessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted employment at Company Y without documented disclosure of prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure to New Private Employer Regarding Prior Government Access Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: At or before the time of accepting employment at Company Y
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.919261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to Company Y — Current Case
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (current case)
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4; BER Case No. 82-6
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Prior to or upon accepting employment with Company Y
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Under the facts, consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.920460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to Company Y — Prior Government Access to Company X Information
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureSupersessionofAbsoluteAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: Prior to or upon accepting employment with Company Y
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.915833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance
type: ConflictofInterestEvolutionStandardComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Current case: Engineer A navigating conflict-of-interest obligations arising from government-to-private employment transition in the context of evolved BER standards.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: Obviously, the appropriate ethical course of action is dictated by the particular facts and circumstances of a case.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest — Cross-Side Adversarial Retention BER 85-4
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Attorney X's approach to Engineer A through Engineer A's agreement to provide report for defendant
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's conflict between obligations to former plaintiff client and acceptance of retention by defendant's attorney in the same proceeding
terminatedby: Not properly resolved — Engineer A accepted the conflicted retention; proper resolution would have been declination
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events
textreferences: In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.906047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Attorney Z's Client — BER Case 85-4
type: ContinuingPost-TerminationLoyaltyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z and full fee payment through Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Not terminated — the continuing duty of trust and loyalty persisted through Engineer A's cross-side retention, which the Board found unethical
textreferences: Engineer A's services were terminated and his fee was paid in full
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, the Board is not prepared to state at this time
textreferences: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.913111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Side Retention After Plaintiff Confidential Access — BER Case 85-4
type: Cross-SideRetentionAfterConfidentialPlaintiffAccessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z through Engineer A's agreement to provide report for Attorney X in the same case
affectedparties: Attorney X (defendant's attorney)
affectedparties: Attorney Z (plaintiff's attorney)
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
subject: 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
terminatedby: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.912957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Terminated from Government Agency
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure from the government agency onward
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer A's post-employment status relative to the government agency, with continuing obligations regarding confidential information accessed during tenure
terminatedby: Not terminated — post-employment confidentiality obligations persist
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
triggeringevent: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.911331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation — Government Agency Regulatory Context
type: ConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's receipt and handling of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information in the course of government regulatory approval functions
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (current case — government agency employment)
constraintclass: Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4; current case Board analysis
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: During government agency employment and post-employment, ongoing
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.920315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition
type: FaithfulAgentandTrusteeConfidentialityObligationSourceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Current case: Engineer A transitioning from government agency employment to Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's grounding of Engineer A's confidentiality obligation in the faithful agent/trustee duty and the appearance-of-impropriety avoidance obligation.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment
type: ForensicExpertSide-SwitchingConflictAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Initially retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; terminated after determining findings were not favorable
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Initially retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; terminated after determining findings were not favorable
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.917721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
type: ForensicExpertSwitchingSidesEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Forensic engineering and safety analysis', 'prior_engagement': "Plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z)", 'subsequent_engagement': "Defendant's attorney (Attorney X)"}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Attorney X Defendant Counsel Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff Counsel Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_matter', 'target': 'Personal injury litigation'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a forensic engineer, was hired as a consultant by Attorney Z
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learned of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report
textreferences: Engineer A agreed to provide the report
textreferences: Engineer A determined that he could not provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
textreferences: Engineer A's actions were not ethical
textreferences: Engineer A's services were terminated and his fee was paid in full
textreferences: Engineer A, a forensic engineer, was hired as a consultant by Attorney Z
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.911667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides Conflict Assessment BER 85-4
type: ForensicExpertSwitchingSidesConflictAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Switching Sides Conflict Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER Case 85-4: Engineer A terminated by plaintiff's counsel after determining findings would not support plaintiff; subsequently retained by defendant's counsel.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Nor was the fact that Engineer A had agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.909220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides Prohibition
type: SwitchingSidesForensicExpertProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon being approached by Attorney X following termination by Attorney Z
textreferences: Engineer A agreed to provide the report.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.918554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Post-Termination
type: FormerClientConfidentialityPerpetuationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Ongoing from termination of engagement with Attorney Z through any subsequent professional activities related to the same matter
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.'
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.918954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment
type: FormerClientDutyofTrustandLoyaltyDurationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER Case 85-4: Engineer A terminated by plaintiff's counsel and subsequently retained by defendant's counsel in the same litigation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.920597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation
type: FormerRegulatoryAccessAdversarialNon-ParticipationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: 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
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.914921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation Company X
type: FormerRegulatoryAccessAdversarialNon-ParticipationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Ongoing throughout employment with Company Y
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Under the facts, consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.919394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation — Company X Matters at Company Y
type: FormerRegulatoryAccessAdversarialNon-ParticipationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation Obligation
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Indefinitely, for all matters in which Engineer A's prior government access to Company X's confidential information would be material
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.915978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Full Discussion With Attorney Z Obligation
type: SwitchingSidesFullDiscussionWithOriginalClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: The Board further noted that Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
temporalscope: Upon determining that findings would be unfavorable to plaintiff and before terminating engagement with Attorney Z
textreferences: The Board further noted that Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.918817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Full Discussion With Attorney Z Obligation Constraint — BER Case 85-4
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Forensic engineer who terminated engagement with plaintiff's attorney without fully discussing the ethical dilemma before accepting opposing retention
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 85-4 forensic engineer)
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
sourcetext: Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
temporalscope: Prior to termination of engagement with Attorney Z and prior to acceptance of engagement with Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.907743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Government-to-Private Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint
type: CompetitiveEmploymentAcceptanceWithConfidentialityConstraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon accepting employment with Company Y and throughout the duration of that employment
textreferences: Engineer A should not be unduly limited or penalized for accepting a position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.919091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Government Agency Confidential Access to Company X Information
type: CompetitorEmploymentPost-GovernmentAccessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: 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
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Competitor Employment Post-Government Access State
subject: Engineer A's retention of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information gained during government agency employment
terminatedby: Not terminated — obligation persists; employment transition to Company Y is permitted but confidential information must not be disclosed
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer A's government agency employment entrusted her with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information submitted for regulatory review
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.912790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Government Regulatory Access Competitor Employment Scope Limitation — Current Case
type: GovernmentRegulatoryAccessCompetitorEmploymentScopeLimitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (current case — government agency to Company Y)
constraintclass: Government Regulatory Access Competitor Employment Scope Limitation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 82-6; NSPE Code Section III.4; current case Board analysis
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the point of accepting employment with Company Y, ongoing
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Under the facts, consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.908027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Government Regulatory Access to Confidential Submissions
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A received access to confidential submissions during government employment, continuing through and after departure from the agency
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A's possession of confidential and proprietary design information submitted by Company X and other companies to the government agency
terminatedby: Not terminated — confidentiality obligations persist post-employment
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
triggeringevent: Engineer A's receipt of access to confidential and proprietary design information from companies seeking government approval, including Company X
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.909403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Naivety Non-Exculpation — BER Case 85-4
type: Post-TerminationAdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessNon-ExculpationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 85-4 forensic engineer)
constraintclass: Post-Termination Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Non-Exculpation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.907307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap — Government Agency Employment Contract
type: NoFormalRevolvingDoorProvisionGapConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.4; No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's departure from the government agency
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.916420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Permissible Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Navigation
type: PermissibleCompetitiveEmploymentAcceptanceWithConfidentialityConstraintNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Permissible Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Current case: Engineer A accepting employment with Company Y, a direct competitor of Company X whose confidential information Engineer A accessed during government service.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A should not be unduly limited or penalized for accepting a position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
textreferences: Under the facts, consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Confidential Information Retention — Company X Design Data
type: ConfidentialClientInformationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidential Client Information Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Indefinitely following Engineer A's departure from the government agency
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.916587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Conflict of Interest
type: Post-EmploymentConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure from the government agency and acceptance of the Company Y position, persisting as an inertial conflict state
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
stateclass: Post-Employment Conflict of Interest State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Passage of sufficient time, formal ethical clearance, or recusal from conflicted matters
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
triggeringevent: Engineer A's departure from government employment and immediate acceptance of position with Company Y
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.911042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Conflict — Company Y Competitor Employment
type: Post-EmploymentConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure from government agency through Engineer A's employment with Company Y
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:39.456182+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Post-Employment Conflict of Interest State
subject: 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
terminatedby: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A should not be unduly limited or penalized for accepting a position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.906209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Duty of Trust Duration — BER Case 85-4
type: Post-EmploymentDutyofTrustandLoyaltyDurationIndeterminacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Forensic engineer whose formal engagement was terminated but who retained residual confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the former client
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 85-4 forensic engineer)
constraintclass: Post-Employment Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Indeterminacy Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Post-termination of engagement with Attorney Z, duration indeterminate
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, the Board is not prepared to state at this time.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.907884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Government-Employment Competitive Conflict Pre-Acceptance Assessment
type: Post-Government-EmploymentCompetitiveConflictPre-AcceptanceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Government-Employment Competitive Conflict Pre-Acceptance Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to conduct a pre-acceptance conflict assessment before joining Company Y given prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submissions
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.916996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Government Competitor Employment Conflict
type: CompetitorEmploymentPost-GovernmentAccessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A accepts the position with Company Y, persisting indefinitely unless formally resolved through recusal, disclosure, or other ethical mitigation
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
stateclass: Competitor Employment Post-Government Access State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Formal recusal from relevant work, full disclosure and employer-sanctioned ethical management, or other formal resolution
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
triggeringevent: Engineer A's acceptance of an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X, following departure from the government agency
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.910887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use
type: Post-Public-EmploymentConfidentialInformationNon-UseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the moment of accepting employment at Company Y; no expiration unless the information enters the public domain through independent means
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.914519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Company X
type: ConfidentialRegulatorySubmissionInformationBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Regulatory Submission Information Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Current case: Engineer A transitioning from government agency to Company Y with prior access to Company X's confidential regulatory submission information.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:43.285659+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.908953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use — Company X Design Information
type: Post-EmploymentConfidentialInformationNon-ExploitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Indefinitely following Engineer A's departure from the government agency
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.915333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Public-Employment Non-Exploitation of Company X Confidential Information — Current Case
type: Post-Public-EmploymentConfidentialInformationNon-ExploitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (current case)
constraintclass: Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section III.4; BER Case No. 82-6
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Post-employment from government agency, ongoing
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.908170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Public-Service Competitor Employment Conflict Avoidance
type: Post-Public-ServiceCompetitorEmploymentConflictAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Public-Service Competitor Employment Conflict Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting employment at Company Y and on an ongoing basis throughout that employment
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.914650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Government Access Disclosure to Company Y
type: PriorGovernmentAccessDisclosuretoPrivateEmployerCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prior Government Access Disclosure to Private Employer Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to disclose prior government access to Company X's confidential information to Company Y as a condition of ethically permissible employment acceptance
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.917132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection
type: RegulatorySubmissionConfidentialityProtectionbyGovernmentEngineerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:44:03.581232+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection by Government Engineer Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the date of access to Company X's confidential information; survives termination of government employment
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.914786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Company X
type: RegulatorySubmissionConfidentialityProtectionbyGovernmentEngineerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:48:58.362061+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection by Government Engineer Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the time of accessing Company X's information through all subsequent employment
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.916725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection — Company X Information
type: ConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; Government Agency Confidential Information Access Policy; NSPE Code Section II.1.c
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Indefinitely following Engineer A's departure from the government agency
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.916114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Government to Company Y
type: RevolvingDoorConflictRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to identify the revolving door conflict created by transitioning from regulatory access to competitive private employment and to take appropriate remedial action
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.917851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Revolving Door Government-to-Competitor Conflict — Current Case
type: RevolvingDoorGovernment-to-CompetitorEmploymentConflictConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (current case)
constraintclass: Revolving Door Government-to-Competitor Employment Conflict Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4; BER Cases 82-6 and 85-4
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the point of accepting employment with Company Y, ongoing
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.908647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Revolving Door Government-to-Competitor Employment Conflict — Company Y
type: RevolvingDoorEthicsConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Revolving Door Ethics Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:07.868797+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.4; BER Case No. 82-6; Revolving Door Employment Policy
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
temporalscope: From the date of accepting employment with Company Y, with ongoing obligations regarding the confidential information accessed during government employment
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.915684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Revolving Door Transition
type: RevolvingDoorEmploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A accepts the Company Y position, persisting as an inertial ethical condition
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Company Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:17.645428+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
stateclass: Revolving Door Employment State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Formal ethical resolution, recusal, or passage of time sufficient to mitigate the conflict
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
triggeringevent: Engineer A's acceptance of private-sector employment with Company Y following government regulatory employment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.911188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A Switching Sides Forensic Expert Bar — BER Case 85-4
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 85-4 forensic engineer)
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:50:26.990365+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the point of accepting retention by Attorney Z through and after termination of that engagement
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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'
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.919674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A's access to confidential Company X information during Engineer A's tenure at the government agency
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to Company X after Engineer A's tenure at the government agency
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A's employment at government agency meets Engineer A's employment at Company Y
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A's initial review and analysis for Attorney Z (BER 85-4) before termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer A's tenure at the government agency before Engineer A's employment with Company Y
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard - General
type: EngineerConfidentialityandLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics and BER case law
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Confidentiality and Post-Relationship Loyalty Obligations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.912635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Engineer Retained By Opposing Party (BER 82-6)
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation Grounding Engineer A's Duty
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
invokedby: Government Agency Employer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation is satisfied by maintaining confidentiality while permitting competitive employment — the two are compatible
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.906527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Favorable Report Opportunity Foreclosed (BER 85-4)
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A Company X Knowledge
type: FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's work for Company Y in competition with Company X
balancingwith: Engineer's right to pursue employment
balancingwith: Loyalty to Company Y
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
sourcetext: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.914352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Government_Agency_Confidential_Information_Access_Policy_Instance
type: GovernmentAgencyConfidentialInformationAccessPolicy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Government regulatory agency and applicable ethics statutes
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Government Agency Confidential and Proprietary Information Access Policy
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Government Agency Confidential Information Access Policy
sourcetext: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
usedby: Engineer A during and after her government tenure
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.910574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Government Agency Employer
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Government regulatory agency', 'function': 'Regulatory approval of private company design submissions'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:41:19.072400+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'information_trustee_for', 'target': 'Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: Engineer A's employment with the government agency
textreferences: Engineer A's employment with the government agency
textreferences: a government agency that was entrusted with Company X's confidential and proprietary design information
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.913550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Government Agency Employer Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection
type: ClientDataConfidentialityManagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Data Confidentiality Management Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The agency's role as custodian of Company X's confidential and proprietary design information submitted for regulatory approval
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:45:35.314047+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Government Agency Employer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.917581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

II.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

III.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

III.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A to Company Y Within Ethical Limits
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's employment relationship with Company Y
balancingwith: Confidentiality obligation to Company X
balancingwith: Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.907003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section II.4.b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.4.b
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: (See also NSPE Code Section II.4.b.).
textreferences: (See also NSPE Code Section II.4.b.).
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.911927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section III.4.b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.4.b
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:58.979534+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.909723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Confidentiality_Provisions
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating post-employment ethical obligations
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.909896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Part-Time Consultant Non-Division of Loyalty in BER 74-2
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government Agency Employer
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Part-Time Municipal Consulting Engineer Without Divided Loyalty
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: The Board noted, under the facts, that the engineer's loyalties were not divided
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The Board noted, under the facts, that the engineer's loyalties were not divided
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.906839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation Activated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.905504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance Invoked By Engineer A Transition to Company Y
type: Post-Public-ServiceConflictAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's employment transition from government agency to Company Y
balancingwith: Engineer's right to pursue private employment
balancingwith: Loyalty to Company Y
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.913842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Public_Official_Conflict_of_Interest_Standard_Regulatory_Access
type: PublicOfficialConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering ethics codes and government ethics frameworks
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
usedby: Engineer A and ethics reviewers assessing the conflict arising from regulatory access to Company X's proprietary information
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.910444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.601076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.596652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.597927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.598445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Applied to Company X Information
type: RegulatorySubmissionConfidentialityProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
appliedto: Company Y Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
invokedby: Government Agency Employer
principleclass: Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Obligation
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Under the facts, consent does not appear to be a relevant factor, since Company Y is a direct competitor of Company X
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.907154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Access to Company X Information
type: RegulatorySubmissionConfidentialityProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X's confidential and proprietary design information
appliedto: Engineer A's subsequent employment with Company Y
balancingwith: Engineer's professional knowledge and career mobility
balancingwith: Loyalty to Company Y as new employer
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Obligation
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: The regulatory trust relationship creates a categorical prohibition on competitive use of submitted proprietary information that cannot be overridden by subsequent employment relationships
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.914202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Resign from Government Agency
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Resign from Government Agency (Action 2) + Accept Position at Competitor (Action 3) → Competitive Conflict Situation Arises (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.602974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.603002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.603034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.603061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:11:27.595312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Revolving_Door_Employment_Policy_Regulatory_Engineer
type: RevolvingDoorEmploymentPolicy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Government ethics statutes and professional engineering norms
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Revolving Door Employment Policy
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Revolving Door Employment Policy
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
usedby: Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in evaluating permissibility of new employment
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.910286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Revolving Door Integrity Invoked By Engineer A Government-to-Private Transition
type: RevolvingDoorIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's use of knowledge gained during government agency employment in subsequent private employment with Company Y
balancingwith: Faithful agent obligation to Company Y
balancingwith: Professional competence and knowledge portability
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:42:50.377784+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
principleclass: Revolving Door Integrity
sourcetext: Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.
textreferences: Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities.
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.914045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Switching Sides Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Forensic Expert Role in BER Case 85-4
type: FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Attorney X Defendant Counsel Client
appliedto: Attorney Z Plaintiff Counsel Client
balancingwith: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:47:28.276757+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.918392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Transitional_Employment_Ethics_Framework_Regulatory_Context
type: TransitionalEmploymentEthicsFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies and BER precedent
discoveredincase: 106
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Transitional Employment Ethics Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 106
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:40:16.159359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Transitional Employment Ethics Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
textreferences: Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
usedby: Engineer A and ethics reviewers analyzing the post-employment conflict
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 106 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.910053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Withhold Company X Confidential Information
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

Withhold Company X Confidential Information (Action 4) → Ethical Compliance Maintained Under Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation (Event 3 resolution)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

companies submitting confidential design information before Engineer A gaining access to that information
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.922008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction

termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z (BER 85-4) before Attorney X retaining Engineer A for the defendant
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:58:47.921835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 106 Extraction