ProEthica Case 129 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.965411
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
type: BoilerandPressureVesselSafetyStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
usedby: Engineer A as committee chair; Engineer B as opposing expert and subcommittee member; Attorney X in retaining Engineer A
usedincontext: The technical standard governing the design and safety of the pressure vessel at issue in the personal injury litigation; Engineer A chairs the standards committee responsible for this code, creating a direct relationship between the governing technical standard and the adversarial expert witness role
version: Current edition maintained by the standards committee Engineer A chairs
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.971308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
type: AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
textreferences: Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating the propriety of accepting the defense expert engagement
usedincontext: Governs the ethical obligations of Engineer A when providing expert witness services in an adversarial legal proceeding where a professional relationship with the opposing expert exists through shared committee membership, including limits of loyalty and obligations of impartiality
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.971623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Attorney X Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
type: AttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'profession': 'Attorney (defense)', 'client_represented': 'Boiler manufacturer defendant', 'case_type': 'Personal injury — pressure vessel explosion'}
caseinvolvement: Attorney X is the defense attorney representing the boiler manufacturer in the personal injury case who has requested Engineer A to conduct a forensic investigation and potentially serve as expert witness, and who must receive full disclosure of Engineer A's committee chair role and its relationship to opposing expert Engineer B.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:33.913898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:33.913898+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial_to', 'target': "Plaintiff's counsel (implied)"}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: Attorney X, a defense attorney
textreferences: Attorney X, a defense attorney
textreferences: has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.973121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Attorney X Defense Counsel Conflict Disclosure Receipt Capability
type: RetainingAttorneyExpertWitnessLicensureVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Attorney X was required to possess the capability to receive and assess full conflict disclosure from Engineer A — including Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — and to make an informed judgment about whether to proceed with the retention given the disclosed dual role relationships.
casecontext: Attorney X retained Engineer A as defense forensic expert in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety, requiring receipt and assessment of dual role conflict disclosures.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification that Attorney X, as retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Attorney X (Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
textreferences: Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.985210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Attorney X Defense Counsel Conflict Disclosure Receipt Constraint Instance
type: StandardsCommitteeOpposingExpertDualRoleDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X as retaining counsel must receive complete conflict disclosure from Engineer A to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the engagement given the supervisory committee relationship between Engineer A and opposing expert Engineer B
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Attorney X
constraintclass: Standards Committee Opposing Expert Dual Role Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Attorney X is constrained from proceeding with Engineer A's engagement as defense expert without receiving full disclosure of Engineer A's committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — the absence of such disclosure would leave Attorney X unable to make an informed assessment of the conflict and its potential impact on the integrity of the expert witness engagement.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest disclosure provisions; BER Case 19-3; professional norms governing expert witness engagements
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
temporalscope: Prior to formal engagement of Engineer A as defense expert
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.979250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Attorney X Defense Counsel Receipt of Full Conflict Disclosure from Engineer A
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X has retained Engineer A as defense forensic expert in personal injury litigation involving a pressure vessel explosion; the plaintiff's expert Engineer B serves on a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Attorney X
obligationclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — including Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — and must assess whether the conflict is sufficiently serious to affect the engagement or require additional management steps.
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
temporalscope: Prior to or upon finalizing the retention of Engineer A as defense expert
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs.
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.977340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Attorney X Defense Counsel Retaining Forensic Expert
type: DefenseAttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Defense attorney', 'litigation_context': 'Personal injury case involving boiler safety'}
caseinvolvement: Defense attorney who retains Engineer A as a forensic expert witness in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety, and who must receive full disclosure from Engineer A about the committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_to', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Opposing Expert'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.974089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Attorney X Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Conflict Verification Capability
type: RetainingAttorneyExpertWitnessLicensureVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Attorney X, as the retaining defense counsel, possesses — or should possess — the capability to verify whether Engineer A's dual role as committee chair and defense expert creates conflicts requiring disclosure or remediation, including proactively inquiring about Engineer A's committee relationships with opposing experts before finalizing the retention.
casecontext: Attorney X retains Engineer A as defense forensic expert in the pressure vessel explosion personal injury case, and must receive and act upon full disclosure of Engineer A's committee chair relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.78
demonstratedthrough: Attorney X's role as the retaining counsel who must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B, and who bears responsibility for ensuring the retention is ethically sound.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Attorney X
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.978152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Attorney X Retaining Counsel Disclosure Receipt and Conflict Assessment Obligation
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X retained Engineer A as a forensic expert witness in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety. The disclosure obligation runs to Attorney X as the party who must assess whether the committee supervisory relationship between Engineer A and opposing expert Engineer B creates conflicts that affect the engagement.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Attorney X (Defense Counsel Retaining Forensic Expert)
obligationclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Attorney X, as retaining counsel, was entitled to receive full disclosure from Engineer A of both Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership, so that Attorney X could assess potential conflicts, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make informed decisions about the engagement.
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
temporalscope: Prior to or upon Engineer A accepting the forensic expert engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
textreferences: Engineer A should be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.984086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER_Case_02-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 02-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
textreferences: Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
textreferences: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm
textreferences: there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical authority for evaluating dual public-private employment conflicts
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that a government engineer's part-time private consulting work creates a conflict of interest even when the subject matter areas appear distinct, due to potential linkages and appearance concerns
version: 2002
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.968826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER Case 02-8 before BER Case 07-12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER_Case_07-12
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 07-12
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently, in BER Case 07-12, Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council.
textreferences: It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described. It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as an expert witness under the circumstances.
textreferences: More recently, in BER Case 07-12, Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council.
textreferences: virtually all of the ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8, and possibly more, were clearly apparent in the later case
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the most recent analogical precedent before distinguishing the present case
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that an engineer serving as a government employee who provides expert testimony while obscuring their private consulting relationship with the retaining party acts unethically, particularly when credentials are misrepresented
version: 2007
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.969545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER Case 07-12 before present case (Engineer A / Attorney X)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER_Case_67-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 67-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
textreferences: In ruling that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: [Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer
textreferences: in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical foundation for analyzing dual-role conflicts in the present case
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that an engineer serving simultaneously in a public approval role and a private consulting role creates an impermissible conflict of interest, even absent formal voting participation
version: 1967
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.968641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER Case 67-1 before BER Case 02-8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER Case 67-1 before BER Case 07-12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER Case No. 02-8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.867761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

BER Case No. 67-1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.867716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Boiler_and_Pressure_Vessel_Safety_Standard_Instance
type: BoilerandPressureVesselSafetyStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Engineering society standards-setting committee chaired by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Boiler Code Standards and Safety Committee Technical Standards
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee
usedby: Engineer A as committee chair; Engineer B as subcommittee member; referenced as the substantive domain creating the appearance of conflict
usedincontext: The technical standards being developed and chaired by Engineer A, which form the subject matter of the potential conflict of interest between his standards committee role and his forensic expert witness engagement
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.969858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Case 129 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_DOE Engineer Testifies Without
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_DOE Engineer Uses DOE-Branded
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_DOT Engineer Accepts Part-Time
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_Doe Prepares Private Subdivisi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_Doe Recommends His Own Plans
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_Doe Votes to Approve Own Plans
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Forensic Ex
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Avoids Ex Parte Lit
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Discloses Committee
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 203
answers question4: 403
cited provision1: II.4.a
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board determined that Engineer A's volunteer committee chairmanship does not, by itself, create a clear or apparent conflict of interest with his role as a private forensic engineering expert, meaning no disqualifying conflict exists that would preclude him from serving.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 201
answers question4: 303
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that no clear or apparent conflict of interest exists in Engineer A's forensic role, the analysis understates a structural tension that the 'clear or apparent' standard may be too permissive to capture. The Board's framing treats the volunteer committee chairmanship as categorically separate from the adversarial expert engagement, but the supervisory relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B is not merely incidental — it is ongoing, institutionalized, and capable of influencing both the litigation and the standards work simultaneously. A more complete analysis would recognize that 'no clear conflict' is not equivalent to 'no conflict,' and that the appearance of impropriety to a reasonable outside observer — a litigant, a court, or the public relying on boiler safety standards — may be substantial even where no formal rule is violated. The Board's conclusion is defensible as a minimum threshold but should not be read as an affirmative endorsement of the arrangement's propriety.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 303
answers question3: 101
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that no clear conflict exists implicitly assumes that Engineer A's forensic objectivity will remain unaffected by his institutional authority over Engineer B's subcommittee. However, a consequentialist extension of this analysis reveals a second-order risk the Board does not address: even if Engineer A maintains full forensic objectivity, Engineer B's independent technical contributions to the boiler code standards subcommittee may be chilled by the awareness that his committee chair is simultaneously serving as an adversarial expert against him in active litigation. This dynamic could subtly distort the standards-development process in ways that harm the broader public safety mission of the boiler code committee — a harm that falls entirely outside the litigation itself and is therefore invisible to Attorney X, the court, and the Board's conflict-of-interest framework as applied. The public interest dimension of standards work, which the NSPE Code treats as paramount, counsels that Engineer A's obligations extend beyond disclosure to Attorney X and should encompass some affirmative protection of the committee's institutional integrity.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's disclosure recommendation to Attorney X, while necessary, is structurally incomplete because it treats disclosure as a one-time act directed solely at the retaining attorney rather than as an ongoing, evolving obligation. As the litigation progresses, the committee relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B may intensify — for example, if Engineer A must evaluate Engineer B's subcommittee work, vote on matters affecting Engineer B's standing, or preside over committee meetings at which Engineer B is present. Each such development represents a new disclosure event that Attorney X, and potentially the court, should be informed of. The Board's static framing of disclosure as a single act at the outset of engagement does not adequately account for this temporal dimension. A more complete ethical standard would require Engineer A to treat his disclosure obligation as continuous and to update Attorney X whenever the committee relationship materially changes during the pendency of the litigation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that Engineer A disclose his committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X is ethically necessary but may be ethically insufficient standing alone. The disclosure is directed exclusively to the retaining attorney — a party with an adversarial interest in the litigation — rather than to any neutral body capable of independently evaluating whether the dual role compromises the integrity of the standards committee. A more robust ethical posture would have Engineer A also consider proactively notifying the engineering society's ethics or governance body about the dual-role situation, not because any rule explicitly requires it, but because the standards committee's credibility as a public safety institution is a value independent of the litigation outcome. This additional step would demonstrate that Engineer A's primary loyalty is to the profession and the public rather than to the defense client, consistent with the NSPE Code's hierarchy of obligations.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 404
answers question3: 101
answers question4: 302
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that Engineer A avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation is sound but addresses only the most obvious vector of impropriety — direct communication. It does not address the subtler and potentially more consequential risk that Engineer A's institutional authority as committee chair could be exercised, even unconsciously, in ways that disadvantage Engineer B in the standards context during the litigation period. For example, Engineer A might assign Engineer B less prominent subcommittee work, delay acting on Engineer B's technical proposals, or allow interpersonal friction from the adversarial proceeding to color his evaluation of Engineer B's committee contributions. A more complete ethical obligation would require Engineer A to affirmatively recuse himself from any committee decisions, evaluations, or actions that specifically and directly affect Engineer B's subcommittee standing for the duration of the litigation, not merely to refrain from litigation-related communications. This structural separation — rather than communication restraint alone — would more effectively protect both Engineer B's professional dignity and the committee's institutional integrity.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, the Board's communication restraint recommendation — that Engineer A avoid exchanges with Engineer B about the litigation without direction from legal counsel — implicitly subordinates Engineer A's independent ethical judgment to the strategic direction of Attorney X. This framing is in tension with the NSPE Code's requirement that engineers act as objective technical experts rather than advocates for their clients. Engineer A's obligation to avoid improper communication with Engineer B derives from his own professional ethics, not merely from litigation strategy, and should be understood as self-executing regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction. Conditioning the restraint on legal counsel's direction risks creating the impression that Engineer A's ethical conduct is contingent on client permission rather than on independent professional obligation — a posture inconsistent with the non-advocate status that forensic engineers are required to maintain in adversarial proceedings.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 204
answers question4: 402
cited provision1: II.4.a
cited provision2: II.3.a
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board found that Engineer A has an affirmative disclosure obligation to inform Attorney X of both his own chairmanship role and Engineer B's membership on a subcommittee within that committee, so that the retaining attorney can assess any potential conflict or appearance of impropriety.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869577
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer A's authority as committee chair over Engineer B's subcommittee does create a meaningful power imbalance that extends beyond the litigation itself. Even if Engineer A scrupulously avoids all direct communication with Engineer B about the pending case, the institutional relationship persists: Engineer A retains authority over committee assignments, agenda-setting, and the broader direction of the subcommittee on which Engineer B serves. This structural asymmetry could subtly chill Engineer B's willingness to assert independent technical positions within the committee — particularly on boiler and pressure vessel standards — if Engineer B perceives that the chair who is simultaneously opposing him in high-stakes litigation holds evaluative power over his volunteer standing. The Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists does not fully reckon with this downstream chilling effect on the standards body's technical integrity. The risk is not merely to the litigation but to the ongoing independence of the standards development process itself, which serves a broad public safety function.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 404
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Although the Board did not explicitly require it, Engineer A should seriously consider voluntarily recusing himself from any committee decisions, evaluations, subcommittee appointments, or agenda actions that directly affect Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation. This recusal would not be legally mandated by the Board's analysis, but it reflects the higher standard of professional integrity that a virtuous forensic engineer and committee chair should aspire to. The Board's recommendation to avoid direct litigation-related communications with Engineer B is a necessary but insufficient structural safeguard. Communication restraint does not eliminate the institutional power Engineer A holds over Engineer B's committee standing. A formal, documented recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee would more credibly demonstrate that Engineer A's dual roles are being managed with genuine impartiality, protecting both the standards body's integrity and Engineer A's own reputation for objectivity.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that no 'clear or apparent' conflict of interest exists does not adequately account for the reputational harm that could accrue to the boiler code standards committee as an institution. From the perspective of the legal community, litigants, and the general public, the image of a standards committee chair serving as a paid adversarial expert against one of his own subcommittee members in active personal injury litigation raises legitimate questions about whether the committee's technical outputs could be influenced — even unconsciously — by the adversarial dynamic. The NSPE Code's emphasis on engineers holding public safety paramount and acting in ways that enhance the profession's honor implies an obligation to consider not only whether a conflict actually exists but whether a reasonable observer would perceive one. The Board's 'no clear conflict' conclusion addresses the former but underweights the latter. Engineer A and Attorney X should both recognize that the appearance of institutional compromise to the standards body is itself an ethical concern independent of whether Engineer A's forensic opinions are in fact objective.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer A's disclosure obligation arose at the earliest moment he could reasonably have discovered Engineer B's subcommittee membership — ideally before formally accepting the engagement, or at the very latest, immediately upon discovery. The NSPE Code's requirement to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest implies a proactive duty of inquiry: Engineer A should have investigated whether any opposing experts in the litigation held positions within his committee before accepting retention, not merely waited for the information to surface passively. If Engineer A discovered Engineer B's membership only after accepting the engagement, the ethical obligation shifted immediately to disclosure upon discovery, not at some later formal milestone. A delay in disclosure after the point of discovery — even a brief one — would itself constitute a deviation from the honesty and conflict-of-interest disclosure standards the Code requires, because it would mean Engineer A continued in the engagement while withholding a material fact from Attorney X. The timing of disclosure is not ethically neutral; it is integral to the integrity of the engagement itself.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The tension between the Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation principle and the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance principle is real but resolvable through structural safeguards rather than categorical prohibition. The Board correctly recognizes that volunteer committee service should not automatically preclude legitimate professional engagements — engineers who contribute to standards bodies should not be penalized by being barred from forensic work. However, this principle reaches its limit when the volunteer role places the engineer in a position of institutional supervisory authority over the opposing expert in active litigation. At that point, the appearance of impropriety is not merely theoretical; it is structural. The resolution is not necessarily withdrawal from the forensic engagement, but rather a combination of full disclosure, communication restraint, and — as argued above — voluntary recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee. This layered approach honors both principles: it preserves Engineer A's ability to serve as a forensic expert while actively managing the supervisory relationship that creates the appearance problem.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A's Non-Advocate Status in adversarial proceedings and his Honesty obligation to Attorney X does not create a genuine ethical dilemma when properly analyzed. Engineer A's duty to remain objective and not merely serve the defense's interests is fully consistent with — indeed, reinforced by — complete transparency to Attorney X about the committee relationship. The concern that full disclosure might strategically benefit or harm the defense client is a legal strategy consideration for Attorney X, not an ethical consideration that should temper Engineer A's disclosure. Engineer A's ethical obligation runs to the truth and to the integrity of the proceeding, not to the strategic interests of the retaining party. If complete disclosure causes Attorney X to seek a different expert, that outcome is ethically preferable to Engineer A withholding material information to preserve his engagement. The Non-Advocate Status principle actually supports maximum transparency: an engineer who withholds conflict information to remain engaged is, in effect, subordinating objectivity to client retention — precisely the advocate posture the principle prohibits.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The Professional Dignity principle and the Objectivity principle do not fundamentally conflict in Engineer A's situation, but their coexistence requires careful behavioral discipline. Engineer A can simultaneously treat Engineer B with professional respect as a subcommittee member and render a forensic opinion that contradicts Engineer B's expert conclusions — these are not mutually exclusive. Professional dignity does not require agreement; it requires that disagreement be expressed through legitimate technical channels, grounded in evidence and analysis rather than personal animus or institutional leverage. The ethical risk arises if Engineer A's committee authority over Engineer B bleeds into the forensic arena — for example, if Engineer A's written report or testimony implicitly or explicitly invokes his committee standing to undermine Engineer B's credibility rather than his technical conclusions. The Board's recommendation to avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the litigation without legal counsel direction is a practical safeguard against this risk, but Engineer A must also ensure that his forensic work product itself reflects purely technical objectivity and does not weaponize the institutional relationship.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.870991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 202
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty of full disclosure to Attorney X extends beyond reporting the bare structural facts of the committee relationship. A duty-based framework requires that Engineer A not merely transmit information but ensure that the disclosure is substantively adequate — meaning Engineer A should proactively assess and communicate his own judgment about whether the committee relationship creates a conflict of interest that could compromise his objectivity or the integrity of the standards body. Merely stating 'I chair the committee and Engineer B is on a subcommittee' satisfies the letter of disclosure but not its spirit if Engineer A withholds his own professional assessment of what that relationship means for his fitness to serve. The categorical duty of honesty implies a duty to share not only facts but also material professional judgments about those facts. Whether that assessment ultimately leads to withdrawal is a decision for Attorney X and Engineer A together, but Engineer A cannot ethically outsource the evaluative judgment entirely to Attorney X by providing only raw facts without context or self-assessment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's willingness to serve as an adversarial expert against Engineer B — a person over whom Engineer A holds institutional supervisory authority — raises genuine questions about the professional integrity and impartiality that a virtuous forensic engineer should embody. A virtuous engineer does not merely ask 'Is this formally prohibited?' but rather 'Does this arrangement reflect the character and judgment that the profession demands?' The answer here is ambiguous. On one hand, a virtuous engineer might recognize that forensic expertise is a legitimate professional service and that committee relationships should not categorically preclude it. On the other hand, a virtuous engineer would also recognize that accepting an engagement that places him in an adversarial posture against someone he institutionally supervises — without taking robust structural steps to separate those roles — reflects a degree of professional overconfidence or insensitivity to the integrity of both roles. Virtue ethics would counsel Engineer A to err on the side of greater structural separation, not merely communication restraint, as the more integrity-preserving course of action.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists is incomplete because it does not adequately weigh the downstream risks to the boiler code standards committee's institutional integrity. If Engineer A's adversarial posture toward Engineer B in litigation — combined with his retained supervisory authority over Engineer B's subcommittee — causes Engineer B to self-censor his technical contributions, defer to Engineer A's positions on contested standards questions, or withdraw from subcommittee participation entirely, the harm extends far beyond the two engineers. The standards development process depends on the free and independent technical contributions of its members; any dynamic that chills that independence harms the public safety mission the committee exists to serve. A consequentialist analysis would weigh these systemic risks against the benefit of retaining Engineer A as a forensic expert, and might conclude that the aggregate harm to the standards body's integrity outweighs the marginal benefit of Engineer A's particular forensic expertise — especially given that other qualified experts without committee ties could presumably be retained.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty to avoid conflicts of interest under the NSPE Code creates an independent obligation to recuse himself from committee decisions or proceedings involving Engineer B for the duration of the litigation — an obligation that exists regardless of whether Attorney X is satisfied with the disclosure provided. Attorney X's satisfaction with the disclosure resolves the client-relationship dimension of the conflict but does not resolve the committee-integrity dimension. Engineer A's duties run not only to Attorney X and the defense client but also to the engineering society, to Engineer B as a fellow professional, and to the public that relies on the standards the committee produces. A deontological framework recognizes that these duties are independent and cannot be discharged by satisfying only one party. Engineer A cannot ethically use Attorney X's acceptance of the disclosure as a complete ethical clearance for the dual-role arrangement; he must also independently satisfy his duties to the standards body and to the profession.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer A had discovered Engineer B's subcommittee membership only after submitting his initial forensic report, the ethical calculus would shift significantly but would not automatically require mandatory withdrawal. The governing standard should be whether the undisclosed relationship materially affected the objectivity or content of the report already submitted. If Engineer A can credibly demonstrate that the report was prepared without any knowledge of Engineer B's committee role and that its conclusions are grounded purely in technical analysis, then immediate disclosure upon discovery — accompanied by an offer to allow Attorney X to reassess the engagement — may be sufficient. However, if there is any reason to believe that Engineer A's prior awareness of Engineer B's identity (even without knowing his committee role) influenced the report's framing or conclusions, withdrawal and potentially report retraction would be the ethically required course. The standard governing this determination should be whether a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the undisclosed relationship could have influenced the work product, not merely whether Engineer A subjectively believes it did not.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: If Engineer A had proactively notified the engineering society's ethics or governance body about the dual-role situation before proceeding, that additional step would have meaningfully strengthened the ethical foundation of his engagement. Such notification would serve several functions: it would create a formal record demonstrating good faith transparency; it would allow the society to assess whether its own governance rules or conflict-of-interest policies required any action; and it would protect the committee's institutional integrity by ensuring that the organization — not just the retaining attorney — had the opportunity to evaluate the arrangement. The Board's recommendations focus exclusively on disclosure to Attorney X, which addresses the client-relationship dimension but leaves the standards body uninformed and unable to exercise its own governance judgment. A higher standard of professional transparency would encompass both disclosures. This approach would also more credibly demonstrate that Engineer A's primary loyalty is to the integrity of the profession and the public safety mission of the standards body, rather than to the preservation of his forensic engagement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 303
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: If Attorney X, upon receiving Engineer A's full disclosure, had decided to retain a different forensic expert with no committee ties, the Board's ethical analysis would not explicitly endorse that outcome as preferable — but the logic of the analysis implies that it would be the cleaner arrangement. The Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists is framed permissively: it does not prohibit Engineer A's service but does not affirmatively endorse it as the optimal arrangement either. The fact that the Board imposes multiple disclosure and behavioral obligations on Engineer A to manage the dual-role situation implicitly acknowledges that the arrangement carries risks that a conflict-free engagement would not. If Attorney X's decision to seek a different expert would eliminate those risks entirely, then from a consequentialist standpoint that outcome is preferable — and this implication does subtly undercut the Board's 'no clear conflict' conclusion by revealing that the conflict, while manageable, is real enough to generate a substantial set of ethical obligations designed to contain it. A truly conflict-free situation would require no such containment measures.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: If Engineer A had chosen to formally recuse himself from all committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation — rather than merely restraining direct communications about the case — that structural separation would have more effectively addressed the appearance of impropriety than communication restraint alone. The Board's recommendation to avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation is a behavioral constraint that depends entirely on Engineer A's self-discipline and is invisible to outside observers. A formal, documented recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee, by contrast, would be a structural and observable act that removes the power imbalance for the duration of the conflict. It would signal to Engineer B, to the engineering society, and to the legal community that Engineer A has taken affirmative steps to ensure that his committee authority cannot — even unconsciously — influence his forensic work or Engineer B's committee participation. The communication restraint the Board recommends is necessary but not sufficient; structural recusal would provide a more robust and credible safeguard.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 203
answers question4: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a
cited provision2: II.3.c
cited provision3: II.4.a
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: Engineer A has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board found that Engineer A's supervisory committee relationship with Engineer B creates an obligation to treat Engineer B with professional dignity and to refrain from any ex parte litigation-related communications with Engineer B outside of legal counsel's direction, in order to preserve objectivity and avoid improper influence.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation and Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance by treating disclosure — rather than withdrawal — as the primary ethical instrument. The Board implicitly held that volunteer committee service does not categorically disqualify an engineer from adversarial forensic engagements, even when the opposing expert is a subordinate committee member. This resolution prioritizes professional autonomy and the practical value of technical expertise in litigation, but it does so by offloading the conflict-management burden onto Attorney X: once Engineer A discloses the committee relationship fully, the retaining attorney becomes the decision-maker about whether the arrangement is acceptable. This approach is coherent but incomplete, because it treats the appearance-of-impropriety problem as one that belongs solely to the attorney-client relationship rather than also to the integrity of the standards committee itself. The principle of Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance is therefore only partially satisfied — the litigation side is addressed through disclosure, but the standards body side receives no structural protection.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Professional Dignity principle and the Objectivity principle exist in genuine but manageable tension in this case, and the Board's recommendations implicitly resolve that tension through procedural separation rather than substantive reconciliation. Engineer A is required to treat Engineer B respectfully as a subcommittee member and to avoid direct litigation communications with him, while simultaneously being permitted — indeed expected — to render forensic opinions that may directly contradict Engineer B's expert conclusions. The Board's resolution is that these two obligations operate in different domains: professional dignity governs the committee relationship, while objectivity governs the forensic role, and the two domains are kept separate by the communication restraint the Board recommends. This domain-separation approach is practically workable but ethically thin, because it does not address the underlying reality that Engineer A's adversarial forensic posture toward Engineer B will inevitably color their committee interactions, regardless of whether any litigation-specific communication occurs. A more complete synthesis would recognize that Professional Dignity in a supervisory relationship requires not merely polite silence but active structural insulation — such as recusal from committee decisions affecting Engineer B's subcommittee — for the duration of the litigation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The most significant unresolved principle tension in this case is between the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution principle — which recognizes that disclosure obligations intensify as the nature and depth of a conflict become clearer over time — and the Standards Committee Role Disclosure principle as applied by the Board, which frames disclosure as a discrete, one-time act directed at Attorney X. The Board's framing is static: Engineer A discloses the committee relationship, and the ethical obligation is thereby discharged. But the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution principle implies a dynamic, ongoing obligation: if the litigation intensifies, if Engineer A's committee authority over Engineer B's subcommittee becomes more consequential, or if new facts emerge that deepen the appearance of impropriety, Engineer A's disclosure obligations should correspondingly intensify. This case teaches that when two disclosure-related principles operate at different temporal scales — one static and transactional, the other dynamic and relational — the more protective principle should govern, particularly where public safety standards are implicated. The Board's failure to articulate an ongoing disclosure obligation leaves a structural gap that could allow a manageable conflict at the outset to become an unmanaged one as litigation progresses. The Honesty principle, which requires Engineer A to be truthful in all professional representations, reinforces the conclusion that disclosure to Attorney X should be treated as a continuing duty rather than a one-time event.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.871892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conflict Disclosure Record Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Invoked By Engineer A Committee Supervisory Relationship
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert witness engagement decision
appliedto: Management of professional supervisory relationship with opposing expert
balancingwith: Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's committee supervisory relationship over opposing expert Engineer B constitutes a potential conflict of interest that, under the profession's evolved disclosure-and-management standard, must be disclosed to Attorney X rather than automatically triggering recusal from the expert witness engagement
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The evolved disclosure-and-management approach means that Engineer A is not automatically barred from serving as defense expert merely because of the committee relationship with Engineer B — but the relationship must be disclosed so that Attorney X can make an informed decision about whether to proceed, and so that all parties can assess whether the relationship can be managed without compromising the integrity of the proceeding
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
tensionresolution: Disclosure is the primary ethical response; recusal may be required if, after disclosure, the parties determine that the conflict cannot be adequately managed — but the principle does not mandate recusal as the automatic first response
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.976649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assessment of whether committee chairmanship creates disqualifying conflict for forensic engagement
balancingwith: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's volunteer standards committee role does not automatically bar forensic expert service; the profession's evolved approach requires disclosure and management of the potential organizational relationship rather than automatic recusal
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board applies the disclosure-and-management standard rather than the absolute avoidance standard, finding that absent direct business conflicts, disclosure of committee roles to retaining counsel is the appropriate response
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
sourcetext: Unless there is some other direct business or professional relationship or history that Engineer A may have had that is not revealed under the facts, there does not appear to be any conflict.
tensionresolution: Disclosure and independent judgment preservation are deemed sufficient to manage the potential organizational relationship; automatic recusal is not required
textreferences: Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
textreferences: Unless there is some other direct business or professional relationship or history that Engineer A may have had that is not revealed under the facts, there does not appear to be any conflict.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.979461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Expert Witness Engagement
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert witness retention by Attorney X
appliedto: Professional relationship between committee chair and opposing expert subcommittee member
balancingwith: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional supervisory relationship over Engineer B — as committee chair over a subcommittee member — constitutes a material professional interest that must be disclosed to Attorney X before Engineer A accepts the expert witness engagement, because the relationship could affect the perception of Engineer A's independence and objectivity
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the conflict of interest disclosure principle requires Engineer A to treat the committee supervisory relationship not merely as a personal matter but as a material professional fact that Attorney X needs to assess the objectivity and independence of the retained expert
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
tensionresolution: Disclosure enables the conflict to be managed through informed consent rather than requiring automatic recusal — consistent with the profession's evolved disclosure-and-management approach to conflicts of interest
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.976010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Regulatory hearing testimony on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to disclose that his testimony was funded by a coal bed methane company — while presenting DOE credentials — constituted a failure to disclose a material financial interest in the outcome of his testimony, rendering his advisory role fundamentally compromised
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The retaining party's identity and the financial relationship between Engineer A and the coal bed methane company were material facts that the regulatory council needed to assess the objectivity of his testimony
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
sourcetext: it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
tensionresolution: Disclosure obligation prevailed; no legitimate interest in confidentiality of retaining party identity justified the omission in a public regulatory proceeding
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
textreferences: it was not entirely clear from the facts on whose behalf Engineer A was testifying
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.980296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Credential Presentation Accuracy Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
type: CredentialPresentationAccuracyinForensicEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Regulatory hearing testimony on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's use of DOE job title credentials in his PowerPoint presentation while testifying as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company — without clearly disclosing his consulting role — created a misleading impression of official governmental authority that rendered his testimony unethical
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The credential misrepresentation was ethically impermissible whether negligent or intentional — the effect on the audience's understanding of Engineer A's affiliation and independence was the same regardless of subjective intent
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
principleclass: Credential Presentation Accuracy in Forensic Engagements
sourcetext: a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
tensionresolution: No legitimate competing principle justified the misleading credential presentation; the obligation of accurate credential disclosure was absolute in this context
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: An obvious question to ask was whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the US DOE representation, since that action could be viewed either as a careless error or as an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony. In either case, said the Board, it was entirely inappropriate
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.980128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DOE Affiliation Misperception Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DOE Engineer Testifies Without Full Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DOE Engineer Uses DOE-Branded Presentation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DOE Engineer Uses DOE-Branded Presentation → DOE Affiliation Misperception Created
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DOT Engineer Accepts Part-Time Consulting Offer
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DOT Engineer Accepts Part-Time Consulting Offer → Municipal Conflict Potential Identified
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: When and how must Engineer A disclose the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B to retaining counsel Attorney X, and does that disclosure obligation extend beyond a one-time factual report to include Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the relationship creates a disqualifying conflict?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to disclose his committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X before or upon accepting the forensic expert engagement
option1: Disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, accompanied by Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the supervisory relationship creates a conflict material enough to affect the engagement, and treat this disclosure as a continuing obligation requiring updates if the committee relationship materially changes during litigation
option2: Disclose to Attorney X the bare structural facts of the committee relationship — Engineer A's chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — as a one-time act at the outset of engagement, leaving the conflict assessment and engagement decision entirely to Attorney X's professional judgment without Engineer A offering any self-evaluation of the relationship's severity
option3: Disclose the committee relationship to Attorney X and simultaneously notify the engineering society's ethics or governance body of the dual-role situation before proceeding, creating a formal institutional record and allowing the society to exercise its own governance judgment about whether the arrangement is consistent with the committee's integrity — in addition to providing Attorney X with Engineer A's professional self-assessment
role label: Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Does Engineer A's simultaneous service as chair of the boiler code standards committee and as defense forensic expert against subcommittee member Engineer B create a conflict of interest that requires withdrawal from one role, or is the arrangement permissible provided Engineer A discloses the relationship, exercises independent judgment, and implements structural safeguards — and if the latter, are communication restraints alone sufficient or must Engineer A also recuse from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation?
focus: Whether Engineer A's volunteer committee chairmanship over Engineer B's subcommittee categorically precludes his service as defense forensic expert, or whether the dual role is permissible subject to structural safeguards beyond mere communication restraint
option1: Accept the forensic engagement, fully disclose the committee supervisory relationship to Attorney X, and voluntarily recuse from all committee decisions, evaluations, subcommittee appointments, and agenda actions directly affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation — while refraining from any direct litigation-related communications with Engineer B without direction from legal counsel
option2: Accept the forensic engagement, fully disclose the committee supervisory relationship to Attorney X, and rely on communication restraint alone — refraining from written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without legal counsel direction — without formally recusing from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee, on the grounds that the Board found no clear conflict and that unilateral recusal could itself signal a conflict the Board did not find
option3: Decline the forensic engagement entirely and advise Attorney X to retain a different qualified expert without committee ties to either party, on the grounds that the institutionalized supervisory relationship over the opposing expert creates an irresolvable appearance of impropriety that cannot be adequately managed through disclosure and behavioral constraints alone — preserving both the standards committee's institutional integrity and the litigation's credibility
role label: Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Does Engineer A's duty to avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation derive from his own independent professional ethics — making it self-executing regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction — or is it properly framed as contingent on legal counsel's guidance, and how must Engineer A ensure that his forensic work product reflects purely technical objectivity without weaponizing his institutional committee authority over Engineer B?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to maintain forensic objectivity and professional dignity toward Engineer B while simultaneously serving as an adversarial expert against him — and whether the Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication obligation is self-executing as an independent professional duty or contingent on Attorney X's direction
option1: Treat the obligation to avoid litigation-related communications with Engineer B as a self-executing independent professional duty — refraining from any such exchanges regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction — while also ensuring that forensic work product is grounded exclusively in technical analysis and does not invoke Engineer A's committee standing to challenge Engineer B's credibility, and treating Engineer B with professional respect in all committee interactions for the duration of the litigation
option2: Follow Attorney X's direction as the governing standard for all communications with Engineer B about the litigation — treating the communication restraint as a litigation-management safeguard coordinated through legal counsel rather than as an independent professional obligation — while relying on the adversarial process and opposing counsel's scrutiny to detect and correct any improper invocation of committee authority in the forensic work product
option3: Treat communication restraint as a self-executing professional obligation and additionally request that Attorney X formally document in the engagement agreement that Engineer A's forensic opinions are rendered solely on technical grounds independent of any committee relationship — creating an explicit record that insulates both the forensic work product and the committee relationship from the appearance that institutional authority influenced adversarial conclusions
role label: Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: What is the scope and completeness of Engineer A's disclosure obligation to Attorney X regarding his committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership, and does that obligation extend beyond a one-time factual report to include Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the relationship creates a disqualifying conflict?
focus: Engineer A's dual-role disclosure obligation: as chair of the boiler code standards committee and as forensic expert retained by Attorney X, Engineer A must determine the scope, timing, and completeness of his disclosure regarding both his own committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership.
option1: Disclose to Attorney X both the committee chairmanship role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, accompanied by Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the supervisory relationship creates a conflict that could compromise objectivity, and commit to updating Attorney X if the committee relationship materially changes during litigation
option2: Disclose the structural facts of the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X as a one-time act at the outset of formal engagement, without providing a self-assessment of conflict severity, and leave ongoing conflict monitoring to Attorney X's professional judgment as retaining counsel
option3: Disclose the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X and simultaneously notify the engineering society's ethics or governance body of the dual-role situation, creating a formal institutional record and allowing the society to independently assess whether its own governance policies require any action
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.874045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Does Engineer A's obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety and protect the institutional integrity of the boiler code standards committee require him to formally recuse himself from committee decisions, evaluations, and actions affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation — beyond merely refraining from direct litigation-related communications with Engineer B?
focus: Engineer A's structural role-separation obligation: having accepted the forensic engagement and disclosed the committee relationship, Engineer A must determine whether communication restraint alone adequately manages the appearance of impropriety created by his simultaneous institutional supervisory authority over Engineer B's subcommittee, or whether formal recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee is required for the duration of the litigation.
option1: Formally recuse from all committee decisions, subcommittee appointments, agenda actions, and evaluations directly affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation, document the recusal with the engineering society, and refrain from all litigation-related communications with Engineer B except as directed by Attorney X
option2: Refrain from all written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without direction from Attorney X, while continuing to exercise normal committee chairmanship functions — including oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee — on the grounds that the Board found no clear conflict and that unilateral recusal would signal a conflict the Board did not find
option3: Delegate day-to-day oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee to a designated vice-chair or deputy for the duration of the litigation without formally recusing from the chairmanship role, thereby reducing the practical power imbalance while preserving Engineer A's nominal committee standing and avoiding the signal that a formal recusal would send
role label: Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.874122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A accept the forensic expert engagement for Attorney X given that Engineer B — the opposing expert — is a member of a subcommittee under Engineer A's institutional supervisory authority as committee chair, or does the structural power asymmetry counsel declining the engagement and recommending a conflict-free alternative?
focus: Engineer A's threshold decision on whether to accept the forensic engagement at all: given the pre-existing institutional supervisory relationship between Engineer A as committee chair and Engineer B as subcommittee member, Engineer A must determine whether the Volunteer Standards Role Non-Preclusion principle permits him to proceed with the forensic engagement or whether the structural conflict — even if not 'clear or apparent' under the Board's standard — counsels declining the retention in favor of a conflict-free alternative expert.
option1: Accept the forensic engagement, disclose the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X immediately upon discovery, implement communication restraint with Engineer B, and voluntarily recuse from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation
option2: Decline the forensic engagement on the grounds that the structural supervisory relationship over the opposing expert creates an appearance of impropriety that disclosure and behavioral restraint cannot adequately neutralize, and recommend to Attorney X that a qualified forensic expert without committee ties to Engineer B be retained instead
option3: Accept the forensic engagement conditionally, disclosing the committee relationship to Attorney X and to the engineering society's governance body, and make continued participation contingent on the engineering society's affirmative determination that the dual role does not violate its own conflict-of-interest policies — withdrawing if the society finds the arrangement problematic
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.874210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: How should Engineer A manage the disclosure of his dual role as boiler code standards committee chair and defense forensic expert when the opposing expert, Engineer B, is a member of his own subcommittee?
focus: Engineer A's Dual Role Disclosure Obligation: Committee Chair Serving as Defense Expert Against Subcommittee Member
option1: Disclose to Attorney X both the committee chairmanship role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, treat disclosure as a continuing obligation requiring updates if the committee relationship materially changes during litigation, and proactively notify the engineering society's ethics or governance body of the dual-role situation
option2: Disclose to Attorney X both the committee chairmanship role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, provide a single comprehensive disclosure at the outset of the engagement, and allow Attorney X to assess whether the arrangement is acceptable without further proactive updates unless directly asked
option3: Disclose the committee chairmanship role to Attorney X as a general professional background matter without specifically identifying Engineer B's subcommittee membership, on the basis that the volunteer committee relationship is diffuse and non-coercive and does not rise to the level of a material conflict requiring particularized disclosure
role label: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.874307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: What structural constraints should govern Engineer A's communications and institutional conduct toward Engineer B — as both opposing litigation expert and subcommittee member — to protect the integrity of both the forensic engagement and the standards committee?
focus: Engineer A's Non-Communication Obligation: Avoiding Ex Parte Litigation Communications with Engineer B in the Committee Context
option1: Avoid all written and verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation unless specifically authorized by Attorney X, while continuing to exercise full committee chairmanship authority over Engineer B's subcommittee on the basis that the committee and litigation domains are categorically separate
option2: Avoid all written and verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation as a self-executing independent ethical obligation (not contingent on Attorney X's direction), and additionally recuse from any committee decisions, subcommittee evaluations, or agenda actions that specifically and directly affect Engineer B's standing for the duration of the litigation
option3: Treat all committee interactions with Engineer B as governed by standard professional courtesy norms without imposing any special litigation-related communication restrictions, on the basis that the forensic and committee roles are institutionally separate and that imposing additional constraints would itself signal a conflict the Board did not find and could disrupt the committee's normal functioning
role label: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.874384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe County Engineer Dual Role Conflict
type: DualPublic-PrivateEmploymentConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Doe prepared subdivision plans in private capacity through his recommendation and vote to approve those plans in public capacity
affectedparties: County planning board
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Subdivision developer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
stateclass: Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict State
subject: Engineer Doe's simultaneous roles as county engineer, county planning board member, and private consulting engineer
terminatedby: Finding of ethical violation by NSPE Board of Ethical Review
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
triggeringevent: Doe prepared subdivision plans as private consultant and then, in his public roles, recommended and voted to approve those same plans
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.972794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe Prepares Private Subdivision Plans
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe Prepares Private Subdivision Plans → Doe Triple Role Conflict Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe Recommends His Own Plans
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe Recommends His Own Plans → Plans Approved Under Conflict
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe Triple Role Conflict Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe Votes to Approve Own Plans
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe Votes to Approve Own Plans → Plans Approved Under Conflict
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe's preparation of subdivision plans (as private consultant) before Doe's recommendation of approval (as county engineer)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Doe's recommendation of approval (as county engineer) before Doe's vote to approve (as planning board member)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consultant
type: Dual-RoleConflictofInterestProhibitioninPublic-PrivateEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State DOT employment and private airport consulting engagement for municipalities
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's simultaneous service as a state DOT traffic engineer and private airport consultant for municipalities created a conflict of interest because highways and airports are functionally linked, and his governmental role with municipalities could be compromised by his private consulting role with the same municipalities
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board applied a functional linkage test: even though state highway work and municipal airport design appear to be distinct domains, the interconnection of transportation infrastructure means decisions in one sphere can affect the other, creating potential for compromised judgment
invokedby: Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consultant
principleclass: Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Public-Private Engineering
sourcetext: it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities
tensionresolution: The potential for conflict was deemed sufficient to render the dual engagement unethical even with employer awareness, because the functional linkage between domains could not be adequately managed
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere. For example, there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked, and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
textreferences: based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented
textreferences: it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.979962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
type: DualRoleAppearanceofImproprietyAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's simultaneous role as a DOE employee in coal bed methane research and as a paid consultant for coal bed methane companies created an appearance of impropriety that was compounded by his failure to disclose the consulting role — the dual role made it impossible for the regulatory council to assess whose interests he was actually serving
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The appearance of impropriety was created not merely by the dual role but by the active obscuring of the private consulting role through the display of DOE credentials, which made the dual role invisible to the audience
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
principleclass: Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
sourcetext: As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
tensionresolution: The appearance of impropriety was irresolvable given the undisclosed dual role; disclosure would have been required at minimum
textreferences: As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council. The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducted a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits. Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.981883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Invoked By John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
type: DualRoleAppearanceofImproprietyAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Subdivision plan preparation, recommendation, and approval process
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: John Doe's simultaneous roles as private consulting engineer (preparing subdivision plans), county engineer (recommending those plans), and planning board member (voting to approve those plans) created an unmistakable appearance of impropriety and actual conflict of interest that rendered his conduct unethical
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The dual-role conflict here was not merely apparent but actual — Doe occupied all three positions simultaneously and exercised authority in each over the same subject matter, making independent judgment impossible
invokedby: John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
principleclass: Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
sourcetext: [Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.
tensionresolution: The conflict was irresolvable; the Board found the conduct unethical regardless of whether Doe was a planning board member, because even the county engineer role alone created an impermissible conflict with private plan preparation
textreferences: In his capacity as an engineer in private practice, Doe had prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member.
textreferences: [Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.
textreferences: his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.979801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Invoked By Engineer A Committee Chair and Expert Witness
type: DualRoleAppearanceofImproprietyAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Professional supervisory relationship between Engineer A and opposing expert Engineer B
appliedto: Simultaneous committee chairmanship and expert witness roles
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
balancingwith: Professional Competence
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's simultaneous role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation involving boiler safety standards — combined with the supervisory committee relationship over opposing expert Engineer B — creates an appearance of impropriety that requires disclosure and assessment before Engineer A proceeds with the engagement
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The appearance of impropriety arises from two overlapping concerns: (1) Engineer A's committee chairmanship may appear to give Engineer A authority or influence over the standards that are at issue in the litigation, and (2) Engineer A's supervisory relationship over Engineer B may appear to compromise the independence of both experts in the adversarial proceeding
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
tensionresolution: Full disclosure to Attorney X of both the committee chairmanship role and the supervisory relationship over Engineer B is the minimum required response — whether the appearance of impropriety is sufficiently serious to require recusal from the engagement or from the committee role is a judgment that Attorney X and Engineer A must make together after full disclosure
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.976498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Forensic Expert Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Forensic Expert Engagement → Engineer A Avoids Ex Parte Litigation Communications with Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Expert Engagement State
type: AdversarialExpertEngagementWithoutPeerCoordinationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Attorney X's request through resolution of the conflict of interest question
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Boiler manufacturer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.72
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
stateclass: Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination State
subject: Engineer A's retention as defense expert in personal injury case involving boiler manufacturer
terminatedby: Disclosure to all parties and resolution of conflict, or withdrawal from engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
triggeringevent: Attorney X requests Engineer A to investigate and potentially serve as expert witness for defense in pressure vessel explosion case
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.970344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Proceeding Expert Independence State
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateExpertIndependenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From acceptance of the expert engagement through conclusion of the litigation
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Boiler manufacturer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
stateclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to maintain objectivity as forensic expert in adversarial personal injury litigation
terminatedby: Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal from engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
triggeringevent: Retention by defense attorney in adversarial personal injury proceeding
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.972361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Avoids Ex Parte Litigation Communications with Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A (BER 07-12) serving on State X Environmental Quality Council overlaps Engineer A (BER 07-12) testifying for coal bed methane company
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A (BER 07-12) testifying at hearing before newspaper article reporting on hearing
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Committee Chair Opposing Expert Non-Communication Constraint
type: StandardsCommitteeChairOpposingExpertLitigationCommunicationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B is a subcommittee member and the opposing expert witness in the same litigation. The shared committee relationship creates a structural communication risk requiring affirmative prohibition of informal litigation-related communication.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Standards Committee Chair Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending personal injury litigation without direction from legal counsel, arising from Engineer A's role as chair of the committee on which Engineer B serves as a subcommittee member.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
temporalscope: Throughout the pendency of the personal injury litigation
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.985838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Conflict of Interest Assessment
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention as forensic expert through disclosure to Attorney X and ongoing litigation
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Retaining client
affectedparties: Technical society
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: there does not appear to be any conflict
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's assessment of whether his volunteer committee chairmanship creates a conflict of interest with his forensic expert witness role
terminatedby: Full disclosure to Attorney X and independent exercise of professional judgment
textreferences: Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest
textreferences: While there may be the potential for an organizational conflict of interest between Engineer A's role on behalf of the technical society and another professional or technical society
textreferences: there does not appear to be any conflict
triggeringevent: Question raised about whether Engineer A's committee role creates a conflict with his expert witness role in litigation involving subject matter within the committee's domain
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.975217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Expert Witness Disclosure Obligation
type: AdversarialExpertEngagementWithoutPeerCoordinationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention as expert through fulfillment of disclosure obligation to Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Technical society
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
stateclass: Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination State
subject: Engineer A's engagement as forensic expert in litigation against Engineer B without prior disclosure of their shared committee relationship to retaining counsel
terminatedby: Engineer A's full disclosure to Attorney X of committee role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
triggeringevent: Engineer A retained as forensic expert in litigation where opposing expert is a member of his own technical subcommittee, without initial disclosure of that relationship
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.975372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Forensic Expert Objectivity Non-Advocate Constraint
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has been retained as defense expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion. The Board noted that professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform forensic services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in professional reports regardless of their role.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to render forensic opinions on the pressure vessel explosion based solely on independent technical analysis as a mechanical and safety engineer, and must not adopt the role of an advocate for the boiler manufacturer defendant or align technical opinions with the adversarial interests of the retaining party.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering forensic expert standards
sourcetext: Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic expert witness engagement
textreferences: Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.986182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Honesty Integrity Forensic Report Constraint
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board emphasized that professional engineers called upon as forensic engineering experts have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in professional reports regardless of their role.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to perform forensic expert services with honesty and integrity, being truthful and honest in professional reports, regardless of whether performing work in the private sector or as a member of an organization with a public role such as a professional or technical society.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
temporalscope: Throughout all professional activities
textreferences: Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.987679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Opposing Expert Shared Committee Leadership
type: OpposingExpertSharedCommitteeLeadershipState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time both engineers are retained as opposing experts in the pending litigation through its conclusion
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Retaining clients of each expert
affectedparties: Technical society
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to... advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
stateclass: Opposing Expert Shared Committee Leadership State
subject: Engineer A (committee chair) and Engineer B (subcommittee member) serving as opposing expert witnesses in the same litigation while standing in a hierarchical committee relationship
terminatedby: Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal of one expert
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees... and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to... advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
triggeringevent: Engineer A retained as forensic expert in litigation where Engineer B — a member of Engineer A's subcommittee — serves as opposing expert
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.975035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Pre-Acceptance Conflict Assessment Constraint
type: ExpertWitnessEngagementConflictAssessmentPre-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was solicited by Attorney X to serve as defense expert in a pressure vessel explosion case. Engineer B, a subcommittee member within Engineer A's committee, serves as the opposing expert. Engineer A was required to assess this conflict before accepting.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Expert Witness Engagement Conflict Assessment Pre-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Before accepting the forensic expert witness engagement from Attorney X, Engineer A was constrained to conduct a thorough conflict of interest assessment identifying his committee chair role, Engineer B's subcommittee membership, and any other professional relationships between himself and Engineer B that could create an appearance of compromised impartiality.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
temporalscope: Before accepting the forensic expert witness engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
textreferences: Unless there is some other direct business or professional relationship or history that Engineer A may have had that is not revealed under the facts, there does not appear to be any conflict.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.987342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Volunteer Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure Constraint
type: StandardsCommitteeOpposingExpertDualRoleDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has been retained by Attorney X as a defense expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion; Engineer B serves as the opposing expert and is also a member of a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Standards Committee Opposing Expert Dual Role Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to fully disclose to Attorney X both his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee and the fact that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that committee, before proceeding with the forensic expert witness engagement.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
temporalscope: Before accepting and throughout the forensic expert witness engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.985691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Case Volunteer Role Non-Preclusion of Expert Service Constraint
type: VolunteerStandardsCommitteeRoleNon-PreclusionofExpertWitnessServiceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is a volunteer chair of a technical society standards-setting committee. The Board found that absent other direct business or professional relationships, the volunteer committee role does not create a disqualifying conflict of interest for forensic expert service.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Volunteer Standards Committee Role Non-Preclusion of Expert Witness Service Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's volunteer service as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee does not per se preclude him from serving as a forensic expert witness in the pressure vessel explosion litigation, provided he fully discloses the committee relationship to Attorney X, exercises independent professional judgment, and refrains from litigation-related communications with Engineer B without legal counsel direction.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting and throughout the forensic expert witness engagement
textreferences: Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: Unless there is some other direct business or professional relationship or history that Engineer A may have had that is not revealed under the facts, there does not appear to be any conflict.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.986009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Code Chair Expert Witness Conflict Assessment
type: VolunteerStandardsRoleExpertWitnessConflictAssessmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A was retained as forensic expert in the pending litigation through resolution of the litigation or withdrawal from one of the roles
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Retaining client
affectedparties: Technical society
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
stateclass: Volunteer Standards Role Expert Witness Conflict Assessment State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous role as chairman of boiler code standards and safety committee and retained forensic expert witness in litigation where Engineer B (a subcommittee member) serves as opposing expert
terminatedby: Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal from expert or committee role
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
textreferences: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
triggeringevent: Engineer A retained as forensic expert in litigation where opposing expert Engineer B is a member of Engineer A's technical subcommittee
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.974857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler Forensic Engineering Domain Competence
type: BoilerandPressureVesselForensicEngineeringCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Boiler and Pressure Vessel Forensic Engineering Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed domain-specific forensic engineering competence in boiler and pressure vessel systems — as a mechanical and forensic engineer with expertise in safety engineering — enabling him to conduct forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render defensible expert opinions independent of his committee chair role.
casecontext: Engineer A retained as defense forensic expert to investigate a pressure vessel explosion in personal injury litigation, drawing on mechanical and forensic engineering expertise.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's recognition that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair, and that his opinion may be informed by his experience in working with safety codes and standards.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: While Engineer A's opinion may be informed somewhat by his experience in working with safety codes and standards, presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.985370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Boiler and Pressure Vessel Forensic Engineering Competence
type: BoilerandPressureVesselForensicEngineeringCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Boiler and Pressure Vessel Forensic Engineering Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses expert-level forensic engineering competence in mechanical engineering — specifically boiler and pressure vessel systems — enabling investigation of the pressure vessel explosion, analysis of applicable boiler code standards, and rendering of defensible expert opinions in the personal injury litigation.
casecontext: Engineer A's mechanical engineering expertise and committee chairmanship qualify him to investigate the pressure vessel explosion and serve as expert witness for the defense.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as a forensic engineering expert with mechanical engineering expertise, demonstrating domain authority sufficient to be retained as expert witness in pressure vessel explosion litigation.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship Established with Defense
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Attorney X's request through acceptance or rejection of the engagement
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Boiler manufacturer
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's nascent professional relationship with Attorney X and the boiler manufacturer as defense client
terminatedby: Formal acceptance or declination of the engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
triggeringevent: Attorney X requests Engineer A to conduct investigation and serve as expert witness
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.972216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Duties - Committee Role vs Expert Role
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery of Engineer B's subcommittee membership through resolution of the conflict
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Boiler manufacturer
affectedparties: Committee members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineering society
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's competing obligations as committee chair (impartiality, standards integrity) and as retained defense expert (client service, adversarial advocacy pressure)
terminatedby: Disclosure and recusal, withdrawal from one role, or formal waiver by all parties
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
triggeringevent: Engineer A learns that opposing expert Engineer B is a member of Engineer A's committee, creating tension between committee leadership duties and adversarial expert role
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.972594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest - Committee Chair vs Opposing Expert
type: OpposingExpertSharedCommitteeLeadershipState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A learns that Engineer B is a subcommittee member through disclosure, recusal, or withdrawal
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Boiler manufacturer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineering society committee members
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
stateclass: Opposing Expert Shared Committee Leadership State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous role as committee chair over Engineer B and as opposing expert witness in the same litigation
terminatedby: Full disclosure to retaining counsel and client, recusal from committee matters involving Engineer B, or withdrawal from the expert engagement
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
triggeringevent: Engineer A learns that plaintiff's forensic expert Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.970676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Committee Chair Expert Witness Instance
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's simultaneous roles as committee chair over Engineer B and as opposing expert witness against Engineer B in the same litigation create a direct conflict of interest requiring avoidance or mitigation under the NSPE Code
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest avoidance provisions from proceeding with the expert witness engagement without addressing the conflict arising from the supervisory committee relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — requiring either full disclosure to Attorney X, structural recusal from committee authority over Engineer B, or declination of the engagement.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4 and conflict of interest provisions; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A learns of Engineer B's committee membership through the conclusion of the litigation
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.979097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest State - Personal vs Professional
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery of Engineer B's subcommittee membership through resolution
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Boiler manufacturer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's structural conflict between committee authority over Engineer B and adversarial expert role against Engineer B
terminatedby: Disclosure, recusal, or withdrawal from engagement
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
triggeringevent: Discovery that opposing expert Engineer B is a subcommittee member under Engineer A's committee chairship
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.970865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Credential Transparency Failure
type: ExpertWitnessCredentialandAffiliationTransparentPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Credential and Affiliation Transparent Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to transparently present his credentials and affiliation at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing — presenting DOE job title credentials while testifying as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company, without disclosing the private retaining party or compensation arrangement.
casecontext: Engineer A testified at a state environmental quality council hearing as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company while presenting DOE job title credentials, leading to a newspaper report identifying him as a 'US DOE researcher.'
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that it was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described, noting that his use of the DOE PowerPoint presentation was entirely inappropriate and that it was not entirely clear from the facts on whose behalf Engineer A was testifying.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X. Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
textreferences: A newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business.
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X. Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
textreferences: It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.985050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Dual Role Conflict
type: DualPublic-PrivateEmploymentConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A accepted private consulting work for coal bed methane companies while employed at US DOE through the Board's ethical determination
affectedparties: Coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Y Environmental Quality Council
affectedparties: US Department of Energy
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council... Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
stateclass: Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous employment with US Department of Energy coal bed methane division and private consulting for coal bed methane companies
terminatedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review determination that conduct was unethical
textreferences: As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council... Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepted private consulting engagement from coal bed methane company while employed in US DOE's coal bed methane division
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.974403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
type: MisleadingCredentialedExpertWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (State X only)', 'public_role': 'US Department of Energy employee, coal bed methane division', 'private_role': 'Paid consultant for coal bed methane companies', 'testimony_jurisdiction': 'State Y (not licensed)'}
caseinvolvement: Testified at a state environmental quality council hearing as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company while presenting DOE job title credentials, failing to disclose the financial relationship with the retaining company, and creating the false impression of testifying as a DOE researcher — found unethical by the BER.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'committee_member', 'target': 'State X Environmental Quality Council'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'US Department of Energy'}
relationships: {'type': 'retaining_client', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company'}
relationships: {'type': 'testimony_before', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE
textreferences: It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified
textreferences: it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.973627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness Credential Misrepresentation
type: ExpertWitnessCredentialPresentationNon-MisleadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case No. 07-12: Engineer A, a DOE employee working in coal bed methane, testified at a state environmental quality council hearing as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company. He displayed DOE credentials in his PowerPoint presentation without disclosing his private consulting relationship, leading a newspaper to report him as a 'US DOE researcher.' The Board found this conduct unethical.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (DOE Employee, Private Coal Bed Methane Consultant, Expert Witness)
obligationclass: Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the capacity in which he was testifying at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing — specifically disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business — and to refrain from presenting DOE job title credentials in a manner that created a false impression of official DOE endorsement of his testimony.
sourcetext: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE. Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
temporalscope: At the time of providing expert testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
textreferences: A newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company.
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE. Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described.
textreferences: It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as an expert witness under the circumstances.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.983644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Governmental Employee Private Consulting Conflict
type: GovernmentalEmployeePrivateConsultingConflictNon-EngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case No. 07-12: Engineer A was employed by the US DOE working in coal bed methane while simultaneously providing consulting services for private coal bed methane companies. The Board found this created a clear conflict of interest making it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in the same area for private clients.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (DOE Employee, Private Coal Bed Methane Consultant)
obligationclass: Governmental Employee Private Consulting Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies while employed by the US Department of Energy in its coal bed methane division, as this dual engagement in the same substantive domain breached his faithful agent duty to his governmental employer and created an irresolvable conflict of interest.
sourcetext: As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting
textreferences: As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients.
textreferences: It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as an expert witness under the circumstances.
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.983809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Private Consulting Prohibition Constraint
type: GovernmentalEmployeePrivateConsultingSame-DomainProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A served as a DOE employee in the coal bed methane division while simultaneously providing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies. The Board found this created a clear conflict of interest making it virtually impossible to work as a part-time consultant in the same area.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (DOE)
constraintclass: Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from providing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies while employed by the US Department of Energy in its coal bed methane division, because the identity of subject matter between the governmental role and the private consulting engagement created an irresolvable conflict of interest breaching his faithful agent duty to his governmental employer.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-12
sourcetext: As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of DOE employment
textreferences: As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.986941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Credential Conflation Testimony Non-Deception Constraint
type: GovernmentEmploymentCredentialNon-ConflationinPrivateTestimonyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A testified at a State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits. His PowerPoint listed his DOE job title; he never disclosed his private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies. A newspaper subsequently reported a 'US DOE researcher' testified, when in fact his attendance was paid for by the coal bed methane company.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (DOE)
constraintclass: Government Employment Credential Non-Conflation in Private Testimony Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from presenting his US DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation while testifying as a privately retained expert witness for a coal bed methane company, because such presentation created a misleading impression that he was testifying in an official governmental capacity rather than as a private consultant.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-12
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
temporalscope: During the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
textreferences: A newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business.
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
textreferences: It was entirely inappropriate, since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the US DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.987154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Credential Conflation in State Y Testimony
type: GovernmentCredentialConflationinPrivateTestimonyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During Engineer A's testimony before State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
affectedparties: Coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Newspaper readers
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Y Environmental Quality Council
affectedparties: US Department of Energy
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
stateclass: Government Credential Conflation in Private Testimony State
subject: Engineer A's use of US DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation while testifying as privately retained expert witness for coal bed methane company
terminatedby: Conclusion of testimony; subsequent newspaper report and revelation of private retaining arrangement
textreferences: An obvious question to ask was whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the US DOE representation
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
textreferences: it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
triggeringevent: Engineer A displayed US DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation while testifying as privately retained consultant, without disclosing retaining party
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.974662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOT Airport Consulting Interrelated Domain Conflict Constraint
type: DualPublic-PrivateRoleInterrelatedDomainConflictNon-ParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A served as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans. He was approached by his former consulting firm to serve part-time seeking municipal airport design contracts. The Board found the interrelated nature of highways and airports created a foreseeable conflict.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (State DOT)
constraintclass: Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting part-time private consulting work for a firm seeking municipal airport design contracts while employed as a State DOT traffic engineer, because the interrelated nature of highway and airport domains — and Engineer A's relations with the same municipalities in both capacities — created a foreseeable conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 02-8
sourcetext: The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of State DOT employment
textreferences: Based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented.
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
textreferences: The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities.
textreferences: There are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked, and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.986578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOT Airport Consulting Public Resource Non-Use Constraint
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (State DOT)
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from using public resources — including State DOT time, equipment, contacts, or information — in the performance of any private consulting work, as cautioned by the Board in BER Case 02-8.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 02-8
sourcetext: The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of State DOT employment
textreferences: The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.987500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consultant
type: Dual-RoleGovernment-PrivateConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'public_role': 'State DOT Traffic Engineer', 'private_role': 'Part-time airport design consultant for former firm', 'specialty': 'Traffic engineering (public); Airport design (private)'}
caseinvolvement: Served as a state DOT traffic engineer while being approached to perform part-time private consulting for municipalities on airport design — a dual role found unethical due to conflict of interest potential between state highway and municipal airport domains.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_contact', 'target': 'Municipalities'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_employer', 'target': 'Former Consulting Engineering Firm'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation
textreferences: Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation
textreferences: Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements
textreferences: his role in one or another area could be compromised in certain situations and circumstances
textreferences: it would be unethical for Engineer A to do so
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.973431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consulting Dual Role Conflict
type: Dual-RolePublic-PrivateEngineerInterrelatedDomainConflictAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case No. 02-8: Engineer A served as a state DOT traffic engineer reviewing private engineering contracts and traffic signal plans. He was approached by his former firm to serve part-time seeking airport design contracts with municipalities — the same municipalities with whom he interacted in his DOT role. The Board found this unethical due to interrelated domain conflict.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (State DOT Traffic Engineer, Prospective Airport Consultant)
obligationclass: Dual-Role Public-Private Engineer Interrelated Domain Conflict Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to decline the part-time private consulting engagement with his former firm for municipal airport design work while employed as a state DOT traffic engineer, because the highway and airport domains are sufficiently interrelated that his objectivity in either role could be compromised, and the appearance of conflict could not be adequately managed.
sourcetext: Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
temporalscope: At the time of considering and accepting the private consulting engagement
textreferences: Based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
textreferences: The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.983469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition
type: GovernmentalEmployeePrivateConsultingDomainOverlapConflictRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Governmental Employee Private Consulting Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his proposed part-time private consulting role for municipal airport design created a foreseeable conflict of interest with his governmental traffic engineering role, due to the interrelated nature of highway and airport infrastructure and shared municipal relationships.
casecontext: Engineer A served as a state DOT traffic engineer while being approached by his former firm to perform part-time private consulting for municipalities on airport design.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that it was unethical for Engineer A to serve in the dual role, noting that highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere, and that clear ethical appearance issues would need to be addressed.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consultant)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities.
textreferences: Clear ethical appearance issues would presumably need to be addressed.
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
textreferences: The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.984895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Discloses Committee Role to Attorney X
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Discloses Committee Role to Attorney X → Conflict Disclosure Record Established
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Management Committee Chair and Defense Expert
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's simultaneous role as committee chair and defense expert witness, with Engineer B as both subcommittee member and opposing plaintiff's expert, creates a dual role conflict that could compromise the interests of all parties and call into question Engineer A's professional judgment.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must recognize that simultaneously serving as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation where the opposing expert is a subcommittee member creates an appearance of impropriety, and must take affirmative steps to manage this dual role — including full disclosure to Attorney X and assessment of whether the conflict requires declining the engagement.
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
temporalscope: Upon learning of Engineer B's role as opposing expert and prior to accepting or continuing the engagement
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs.
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.977660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition
type: DualRoleAppearanceofImproprietyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that simultaneously serving as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation governed by those standards created an appearance of impropriety requiring proactive disclosure and management — even where no actual conflict existed — including recognizing the specific appearance concern arising from the supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
casecontext: Engineer A simultaneously chairs the boiler code standards committee and serves as defense forensic expert in litigation involving boiler safety, with opposing expert Engineer B serving on his committee.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification of Engineer A's critical obligations to disclose the dual role and manage the committee-litigation interface, and its distinction of the present case from earlier cases involving more direct conflicts.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts.
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
textreferences: Engineer A should be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.985544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Capability
type: DualRoleAppearanceofImproprietyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that simultaneously chairing the boiler code standards and safety committee — which governs the very standards at issue in the pressure vessel explosion litigation — and serving as defense expert witness in that litigation creates an appearance of impropriety requiring affirmative management and disclosure.
casecontext: Engineer A's dual role as committee chair and defense expert witness in boiler safety litigation creates an appearance of impropriety that must be recognized, disclosed, and managed.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The factual situation in which Engineer A chairs the committee governing boiler safety standards while being retained as defense expert in litigation involving those standards, with the opposing expert being a member of Engineer A's committee.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.965965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Witness Engagement Pre-Acceptance Conflict Assessment Constraint Instance
type: ExpertWitnessEngagementConflictAssessmentPre-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was solicited by Attorney X to serve as defense expert before Engineer A had identified the conflict arising from Engineer B's membership on Engineer A's committee; the pre-acceptance conflict assessment obligation required Engineer A to identify this relationship before accepting
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Expert Witness Engagement Conflict Assessment Pre-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from accepting the expert witness engagement from Attorney X without first conducting a thorough pre-acceptance conflict assessment — including identifying all professional relationships with the opposing expert Engineer B, including their shared committee membership and supervisory relationship — and disclosing all identified conflicts to Attorney X before formal engagement acceptance.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest avoidance provisions; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
temporalscope: Prior to formal acceptance of the expert witness engagement
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.978749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Objectivity Non-Advocate Constraint Instance
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has been retained by defense counsel Attorney X to investigate a pressure vessel explosion and potentially serve as expert witness; Engineer A must maintain objectivity and independence as a forensic expert rather than functioning as an advocate for the defense
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from adopting the role of an advocate for the boiler manufacturer defense in the personal injury litigation — and must instead render forensic expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment — prohibiting Engineer A from aligning technical conclusions with the adversarial interests of the defense regardless of the retaining relationship with Attorney X.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics professional independence provisions; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic investigation and any expert witness testimony
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.978937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Objectivity in Defense Retention Pressure Vessel Explosion
type: ExpertWitnessEngineeringNon-AdvocateObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has been retained by defense attorney Attorney X to investigate and potentially testify as an expert witness in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion; Engineer A must resist any pressure to adopt an advocacy role on behalf of the boiler manufacturer.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and independent professional judgment, functioning as an objective assistant to the trier of fact rather than as an advocate for the defendant boiler manufacturer, notwithstanding being retained by defense counsel Attorney X.
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert.
temporalscope: Throughout the investigation and any expert witness engagement
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert.
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.977488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment, independent of Attorney X's litigation interests and the boiler manufacturer's defense strategy.
casecontext: Engineer A has been retained by defense attorney Attorney X to investigate a pressure vessel explosion and potentially serve as expert witness on behalf of the boiler manufacturer in a personal injury case.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's role as a forensic engineering expert with mechanical engineering expertise, retained to investigate a pressure vessel explosion and potentially testify as an expert witness, requiring maintenance of objectivity despite defense retention.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.965774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Opposing Expert Supervisory Authority Conflict Non-Participation Constraint Instance
type: OpposingExpertSupervisoryAuthorityConflictNon-ParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within that committee; both are serving as opposing expert witnesses in the same personal injury litigation — creating a power asymmetry in which Engineer A holds supervisory authority over Engineer B in the committee context while simultaneously opposing Engineer B in adversarial litigation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Opposing Expert Supervisory Authority Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from simultaneously exercising supervisory committee authority over Engineer B — as chair of the committee on which Engineer B serves — while serving as the opposing expert witness against Engineer B in active personal injury litigation, without either recusing from committee supervisory functions affecting Engineer B during the litigation period or declining the expert witness engagement, as the hierarchical supervisory relationship creates an irresolvable appearance of compromised impartiality that cannot be mitigated by disclosure alone.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest avoidance provisions; BER Case 19-3; professional norms governing standards committee integrity
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
temporalscope: Throughout the pendency of the personal injury litigation and any related proceedings
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.978589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Qualified to Perform Forensic Expert Role
type: QualifiedtoPerform
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — Engineer A holds expertise in mechanical engineering and forensic engineering
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Boiler manufacturer
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:30.742017+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
stateclass: Qualified to Perform
subject: Engineer A's professional competence in mechanical engineering and forensic engineering relevant to pressure vessel explosion investigation
terminatedby: Not terminated by facts presented
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
triggeringevent: Attorney X's request based on Engineer A's established expertise
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.971016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Dual Disclosure to Attorney X
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a mechanical and forensic PE who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee, was retained by defense attorney Attorney X to conduct a forensic investigation of a pressure vessel explosion. The plaintiff's expert, Engineer B, is a member of a technical subcommittee within the same committee chaired by Engineer A.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair, Forensic Expert Witness)
obligationclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to fully disclose to Attorney X: (1) his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, and (2) that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that same boiler code standards and safety committee.
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
temporalscope: Upon accepting the forensic expert engagement from Attorney X, and before commencing the forensic investigation
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.982087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Dual Role Disclosure to Attorney X
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess and exercise the capability to fully disclose to Attorney X both his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee and the fact that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that committee.
casecontext: Engineer A retained as defense forensic expert while chairing the committee on which opposing expert Engineer B serves as a subcommittee member.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification of Engineer A's obligation to fully disclose to Attorney X his committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership before proceeding with the forensic engagement.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.984384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
type: StandardsCommitteeChairExpertWitness
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Mechanical engineering and forensic engineering', 'committee_role': 'Chair, boiler code standards and safety committee', 'litigation_role': 'Defense expert witness (retained, not yet confirmed)'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A is a mechanical and forensic engineering PE who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee and has been retained by defense attorney to investigate and potentially testify as expert witness in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion, while the plaintiff's expert (Engineer B) is a member of a subcommittee under Engineer A's committee authority.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:33.913898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:33.913898+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'committee_chair_over', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'opposing_expert_to', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X Defense Attorney'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.972070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure Constraint Instance
type: StandardsCommitteeOpposingExpertDualRoleDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B, the plaintiff's expert, is a member of a subcommittee within that same committee; Engineer A has been asked by Attorney X to serve as defense expert in personal injury litigation involving a pressure vessel explosion
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Standards Committee Opposing Expert Dual Role Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from accepting the expert witness engagement from Attorney X without first fully disclosing to Attorney X both Engineer A's role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and Engineer B's membership on a subcommittee within that same committee — the disclosure must be complete enough to enable Attorney X to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with Engineer A as defense expert.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
temporalscope: At the time of engagement acceptance and throughout the duration of the expert witness engagement
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.978304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure to Attorney X
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee and has been retained by defense attorney Attorney X to investigate and potentially testify as an expert witness in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion; the plaintiff's expert Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within Engineer A's committee.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to fully disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's own role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and Engineer B's role as a member of a subcommittee within that same committee, so that Attorney X can assess the conflict, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make an informed decision about retaining Engineer A as the defense expert.
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
temporalscope: Upon learning that Engineer B is the opposing expert and prior to or contemporaneously with accepting the engagement
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs.
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.977166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
type: StandardsCommitteeChairExpertWitness
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Mechanical engineering, safety engineering', 'volunteer_role': 'Chairman, boiler code standards and safety committee (engineering society)', 'litigation_role': 'Forensic expert witness retained by defense attorney'}
caseinvolvement: Serves as volunteer chair of a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and is retained by Attorney X as a forensic expert witness in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety — the present case finding no inherent conflict but imposing disclosure and ex parte communication obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'committee_superior', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'opposing_expert', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
sourcetext: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee
textreferences: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee
textreferences: Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair
textreferences: advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee
textreferences: not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.973795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Obligation
type: EthicalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board of Ethical Review affirmed the general obligation of professional engineers serving as forensic experts to perform services with honesty and integrity, regardless of whether they serve in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles such as professional or technical societies.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair, Forensic Expert Witness)
obligationclass: Ethical Conduct
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to perform forensic expert services with honesty and integrity, being truthful and honest in professional reports, consistent with the general ethical responsibility of professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation.
sourcetext: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic investigation and expert engagement
textreferences: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.983947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert Objectivity Obligation
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by defense attorney Attorney X to conduct a forensic investigation of a pressure vessel explosion. Despite being retained by defense counsel, Engineer A's role is that of an objective technical expert assisting the trier of fact, not an advocate for the boiler manufacturer defendant.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair, Forensic Expert Witness)
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to render forensic opinions on the pressure vessel explosion based on independent technical analysis as a mechanical and safety engineer, exercising independent judgment and discretion rather than acting as an advocate for the defense or allowing his committee chair role to influence his technical conclusions.
sourcetext: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic investigation and any subsequent expert testimony
textreferences: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role.
textreferences: While Engineer A's opinion may be informed somewhat by his experience in working with safety codes and standards, presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.983110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Objectivity
type: ForensicExpertWitnessHonestyandIntegrityinReportPreparationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Honesty and Integrity in Report Preparation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to perform forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions with honesty and integrity, based solely on independent technical analysis as a mechanical and forensic engineer, independent of his committee chair role or the retaining party's litigation interests.
casecontext: Engineer A retained as defense forensic expert in personal injury case involving pressure vessel explosion, while serving as volunteer chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's statement that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair, and that he would exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role.
textreferences: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: Presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
textreferences: Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.984681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication with Engineer B
type: StandardsCommitteePeerLitigationCommunicationRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that his committee supervisory relationship with Engineer B — who serves as a subcommittee member and opposing expert — required him to refrain from any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
casecontext: Engineer A chairs the committee on which opposing expert Engineer B serves; both are simultaneously engaged as opposing forensic experts in the same personal injury litigation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification of Engineer A's obligation to be respectful of Engineer B and not engage in any written or verbal exchanges regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.984521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication with Engineer B Litigation Constraint Instance
type: StandardsCommitteeOpposingExpertLitigationCommunicationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A and Engineer B are opposing expert witnesses in personal injury litigation while simultaneously standing in a supervisory committee relationship — Engineer A as chair, Engineer B as subcommittee member — creating structural communication risks that require affirmative prohibition of informal litigation-related communication
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Standards Committee Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending personal injury litigation — including any discussion of the technical merits, expert opinions, or litigation strategy — without explicit direction from legal counsel, arising from the shared committee relationship in which Engineer A chairs the committee on which Engineer B serves as a subcommittee member.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:13.007940+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest and independence provisions; BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
temporalscope: Throughout the pendency of the personal injury litigation
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.978444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication with Engineer B Regarding Litigation
type: StandardsCommitteePeerLitigationNon-CommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within that committee and is simultaneously the plaintiff's forensic expert in the same litigation in which Engineer A serves as defense expert.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:59.675065+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Standards Committee Peer Litigation Non-Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending personal injury litigation without the direction of Attorney X, so that the integrity of both the expert witness role and the standards committee function are preserved and no improper ex parte communication occurs.
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the litigation engagement
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs.
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.982937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Volunteer Role Conflict Assessment
type: VolunteerStandardsRoleForensicExpertConflictAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Volunteer Standards Role Forensic Expert Conflict Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to assess whether his volunteer role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee created an impermissible conflict with his forensic expert engagement, correctly determining that absent other direct business or professional relationships, the volunteer role did not per se preclude forensic service.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X as a forensic expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion, while simultaneously serving as volunteer chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's determination that Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert did not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest, distinguishing the present case from earlier cases involving governmental employment conflicts.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: Unless there is some other direct business or professional relationship or history that Engineer A may have had that is not revealed under the facts, there does not appear to be any conflict.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.984238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that simultaneously chairing the boiler code standards and safety committee and serving as defense expert witness in litigation where a committee subcommittee member (Engineer B) is the opposing expert creates a dual role conflict requiring full disclosure to Attorney X.
casecontext: Engineer A chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee and has been retained by Attorney X as defense expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion, while Engineer B — the plaintiff's expert — is a member of a subcommittee within Engineer A's committee.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that Engineer B's membership on a subcommittee within Engineer A's chaired committee creates a supervisory relationship that must be disclosed to retaining counsel Attorney X before or at the time of engagement.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.977981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Capability
type: StandardsCommitteePeerLitigationCommunicationRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that Engineer B's role as opposing expert in the pending litigation requires Engineer A to refrain from any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the litigation without direction from legal counsel, notwithstanding their ongoing committee relationship.
casecontext: Engineer A chairs the committee of which Engineer B is a subcommittee member, and Engineer B is simultaneously the plaintiff's forensic expert in the pressure vessel explosion litigation in which Engineer A serves as defense expert.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the committee chair-subcommittee member relationship with Engineer B, combined with Engineer B's role as opposing expert, creates a communication restraint obligation that must be honored to preserve litigation integrity and standards process integrity.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.977829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Dual Role Conflict
type: DualPublic-PrivateEmploymentConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A was approached by former firm through the Board's ethical determination
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Former consulting firm
affectedparties: Municipalities
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:35:01.322580+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements... while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
stateclass: Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous employment as State DOT traffic engineer and proposed part-time consulting for private firm on municipal airport projects
terminatedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review determination that the arrangement would be unethical
textreferences: Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements... while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
textreferences: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
triggeringevent: Former consulting firm approached Engineer A to serve part-time seeking municipal airport contracts while Engineer A remained employed at State DOT
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.974245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A Volunteer Standards Role Non-Preclusion of Forensic Service
type: VolunteerStandardsRoleNon-PreclusionofForensicExpertServiceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board of Ethical Review distinguished Engineer A's volunteer standards committee role from the governmental employment conflicts in BER 67-1 and BER 02-8, finding that volunteer public-benefit standards service does not create the same type of conflict as governmental employment or commercial dual-role arrangements.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair, Forensic Expert Witness) and Ethics Reviewing Body
obligationclass: Volunteer Standards Role Non-Preclusion of Forensic Expert Service Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's volunteer service as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee did not per se preclude him from serving as a forensic expert witness for Attorney X, provided he disclosed the committee relationship, exercised independent judgment, and had no other direct business or professional relationship with Engineer B beyond the committee supervisory relationship.
sourcetext: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the forensic expert engagement
textreferences: Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: The Board sees a clear difference from the earlier cases.
textreferences: Unless there is some other direct business or professional relationship or history that Engineer A may have had that is not revealed under the facts, there does not appear to be any conflict.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.983294
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A chairing boiler code standards and safety committee overlaps Engineer A serving as forensic expert for Attorney X
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A's disclosure to Attorney X before Engineer A's engagement as expert witness
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A's employment with State DOT overlaps Engineer A's proposed part-time consulting for former firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer A's prior consulting work (airport design) before Engineer A's employment with State DOT
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness
type: StandardsSubcommitteeMemberExpertWitness
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Forensic engineering / boiler and pressure vessel', 'committee_role': "Member, technical subcommittee under Engineer A's committee", 'litigation_role': "Plaintiff's expert witness"}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B is the plaintiff's forensic engineering expert in the personal injury case involving the pressure vessel explosion, and is also a member of a technical subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A (the opposing defense expert), creating a dual institutional-adversarial relationship.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:33.913898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:33.913898+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'opposing_expert_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': "Plaintiff's Attorney (implied)"}
relationships: {'type': 'subcommittee_member_under', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness
sourcetext: the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.972979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness Conflict Awareness
type: StandardsCommitteeDualRoleConflictDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B, as a member of a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A, possesses — or should possess — the capability to recognize that simultaneously serving as plaintiff's forensic expert in litigation where Engineer A (the committee chair) serves as opposing defense expert creates a dual role conflict that may require disclosure to retaining plaintiff's counsel.
casecontext: Engineer B is both a subcommittee member under Engineer A's committee chairmanship and the plaintiff's forensic expert in the same litigation where Engineer A serves as defense expert.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's simultaneous membership on Engineer A's committee subcommittee and role as plaintiff's forensic expert in the pressure vessel explosion litigation.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:39:09.499665+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Opposing Expert
type: StandardsSubcommitteeMemberExpertWitness
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'volunteer_role': 'Member, technical subcommittee within boiler code standards and safety committee', 'litigation_role': 'Forensic expert witness on opposing side from Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Serves as a member of a technical subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A, and is simultaneously retained as a forensic expert witness on the opposing side of the same personal injury litigation, bearing obligations to avoid ex parte communications with Engineer A about the pending litigation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'committee_subordinate_to', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'opposing_expert_to', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness
sourcetext: Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
textreferences: Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee
textreferences: not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.973945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer B Subcommittee Membership Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer B Subcommittee Membership Discovered → Engineer A Discloses Committee Role to Attorney X
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer B serving on subcommittee chaired by Engineer A overlaps Engineer B serving as plaintiff's forensic expert
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.967893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer Doe County Engineer Planning Board Private Plan Approval Prohibition Constraint
type: PublicOfficialPrivatePlanApprovalParticipationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Doe served as county engineer, county planning board member, and private consulting engineer simultaneously. He prepared subdivision plans privately, then recommended and voted to approve those same plans in his governmental capacity.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Public Official Private Plan Approval Participation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained from recommending and voting to approve subdivision plans that he had prepared in his private consulting capacity, because his dual role as county engineer and planning board member created an irresolvable conflict of interest that violated the NSPE Code of Ethics.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:46:04.260242+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 67-1
sourcetext: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of dual public-private employment
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
textreferences: In ruling that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: [Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.986375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer Non-Advocate Status Invoked By Engineer A Defense Expert Role
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateStatusinAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Defense expert witness role in personal injury litigation
appliedto: Forensic investigation of pressure vessel explosion on behalf of boiler manufacturer
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, despite being retained by defense counsel Attorney X, must maintain the role of objective technical expert rather than advocate for the boiler manufacturer, rendering forensic opinions based on technical evidence rather than the manufacturer's litigation interests
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The adversarial context of the personal injury litigation does not transform Engineer A's professional role from technical expert to advocate — Engineer A's obligations to objectivity, completeness, and truthful reporting remain fully operative regardless of the retaining party's litigation interests
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
tensionresolution: Engineer A's non-advocate status means that Attorney X cannot legitimately expect Engineer A to suppress adverse technical findings or shade opinions in favor of the manufacturer — the engagement is for objective forensic expertise, not partisan advocacy
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.976339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateStatusinAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic expert engagement in personal injury boiler explosion litigation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's role as forensic expert for Attorney X requires him to provide objective technical expertise as a mechanical and safety engineer, not to advocate for the defense position — his committee expertise informs his analysis but does not make him a partisan for any particular interpretation of the boiler safety standards
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-advocate principle is reinforced in this case by Engineer A's committee role — he must be especially careful that his forensic opinions reflect independent technical judgment rather than institutional positions of the standards committee
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's duty to provide objective technical expertise prevails over any pressure to advocate for the defense position; his committee role makes this obligation more salient, not less
textreferences: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion
textreferences: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.980811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
type: ExpertWitnessConflictofInterestDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies and bar association guidance
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
usedby: Engineer A in determining disclosure and recusal obligations
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to disclose to Attorney X the professional relationship between Engineer A (as committee chair) and Engineer B (as subcommittee member serving as opposing expert), and to evaluate whether this relationship creates a disqualifying conflict or appearance of partiality
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.971448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Expert_Witness_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Standard_Instance
type: ExpertWitnessConflictofInterestDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics practice
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in specifying Engineer A's affirmative disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Professional norm requiring Engineer A to fully disclose his standards committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to retaining counsel, and prohibiting ex parte communications with Engineer B regarding pending litigation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.970023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
type: ForensicEngineeringCredentialStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: National Academy of Forensic Engineers and professional engineering bodies
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Forensic Engineering Credential and Practice Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B
usedby: Engineer A and Engineer B in their respective forensic expert roles
usedincontext: Governs the professional obligations of Engineer A and Engineer B as forensic engineering experts, including standards for independence, objectivity, and conflict management in adversarial proceedings
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.971901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Honesty Invoked By Engineer A Disclosure to Attorney X
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Pre-engagement disclosure to retaining attorney
appliedto: Representation of professional independence and objectivity
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A is obligated to be fully honest with Attorney X about the professional relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — including the committee supervisory relationship — rather than accepting the engagement without disclosing facts that are material to Attorney X's assessment of Engineer A's suitability as defense expert
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty requires not only the absence of affirmative misrepresentation but also the proactive disclosure of material facts that Attorney X would reasonably want to know before making the retention decision — the committee supervisory relationship with the opposing expert is precisely such a material fact
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
tensionresolution: Honesty takes precedence over any temptation to accept the engagement without disclosure — the engagement relationship itself must be founded on complete and accurate representation of Engineer A's professional relationships
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.977019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to accurately represent his role as a paid consultant for coal bed methane companies — while displaying DOE credentials — violated the fundamental obligation to make only truthful and accurate representations of professional affiliation and capacity
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends to the context and capacity in which testimony is provided, not merely to the technical content of the testimony itself
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
tensionresolution: No competing principle justified the misleading representation; honesty required affirmative disclosure of consulting role
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.980466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.867916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

II.3.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.867955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

II.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.867989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
type: Dual-RolePart-TimeMunicipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'public_role': 'County Engineer and County Planning Board Member', 'private_role': 'Part-time consulting engineer'}
caseinvolvement: Prepared subdivision plans as a private consulting engineer, then as county engineer recommended approval of those same plans to the county planning board, and as a planning board member voted to approve them — a triple conflict of interest found unethical by the BER.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:43.817300+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Subdivision Developer'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'County Government'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority', 'target': 'County Planning Board'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Dual-Role Part-Time Municipal Engineer
sourcetext: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board
textreferences: As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer
textreferences: He also engaged in part-time consulting practice
textreferences: In ruling that Doe's actions were unethical
textreferences: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board
textreferences: as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.973284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member Dual Role Conflict
type: DualRoleAppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceThroughIsolationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case No. 67-1: John Doe served as county engineer, planning board member, and part-time private consulting engineer. He prepared subdivision plans privately, recommended them as county engineer, and voted to approve them as a planning board member. The Board found this conduct unethical as a direct conflict with the NSPE Code.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:43:57.085266+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: John Doe (County Engineer, Planning Board Member, Private Consulting Engineer)
obligationclass: Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Through Isolation Obligation
obligationstatement: John Doe was obligated to refrain from simultaneously preparing subdivision plans as a private consulting engineer, recommending those same plans as county engineer, and voting to approve those plans as a planning board member — each role creating an independent conflict that compounded the others.
sourcetext: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice. Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
temporalscope: Throughout the subdivision approval process
textreferences: In ruling that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice. Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
textreferences: [Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.968154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Self-Recusal Failure
type: DualRolePlanningBoardEngineerSelf-RecusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dual Role Planning Board Engineer Self-Recusal Capability
capabilitystatement: John Doe failed to exercise the capability to recognize and act on the conflict arising from preparing private consulting subdivision plans that would come before the county planning board on which he served — failing to recuse from both the recommendation and voting functions, and failing to recognize that the conflict existed even at the recommendation stage by virtue of his county engineer responsibilities.
casecontext: John Doe prepared subdivision plans as a private consulting engineer, then as county engineer recommended approval of those plans to the county planning board, and as a planning board member voted to approve them.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that Doe's actions were unethical and in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics, and that he would have been in violation even if he had not been a member of the county planning board, by virtue of his employment as county engineer and the responsibility to submit plans with recommendation.
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:45:50.846220+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: John Doe (County Engineer Planning Board Member)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
textreferences: '[Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.'
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
textreferences: In ruling that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.968330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Municipal Conflict Potential Identified
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Current
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
textreferences: based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's dual roles as standards committee chair and forensic expert witness
usedincontext: Primary normative authority establishing obligations of honesty, integrity, faithful agency, and conflict of interest avoidance for professional engineers serving in dual public-private roles and as forensic experts
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.968480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether to accept the expert witness engagement
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding conflict of interest disclosure, impartiality in expert witness service, and professional conduct in adversarial proceedings involving a subordinate committee member as opposing expert
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.971149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Forensic Investigation
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert witness opinion on boiler safety
appliedto: Forensic investigation of pressure vessel explosion
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment, without allowing the defense attorney's litigation interests, the manufacturer's commercial interests, or the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B to shape or distort the technical conclusions
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in this context requires Engineer A to maintain complete independence from the retaining party's advocacy interests and to ensure that the committee supervisory relationship over Engineer B does not create either actual bias or the appearance of bias in the forensic analysis
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
tensionresolution: The engineer's objectivity obligation is not subordinated by the adversarial context of the litigation — Engineer A must render the same quality of objective technical opinion that would be rendered in a non-adversarial engineering investigation
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.976176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic expert opinion in boiler explosion personal injury litigation
balancingwith: Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation in Forensic Engagements
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must render forensic opinions based on independent technical assessment as a mechanical and safety engineer, not as an advocate for the position his committee work may have established, maintaining objectivity that is informed but not determined by committee experience
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in this context requires that committee expertise serve as background knowledge rather than as a predetermined conclusion, and that Engineer A's forensic analysis be genuinely independent
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion
tensionresolution: Objectivity is preserved through independent judgment; committee experience informs but does not control the forensic opinion
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.980636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Plans Approved Under Conflict
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Professional Dignity Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert Toward Engineer B
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Professional relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B in shared committee context during pending litigation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must treat Engineer B with professional respect in their shared committee context and must not engage in written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel, thereby preserving Engineer B's professional dignity and the integrity of their shared organizational relationship
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Professional dignity here requires not only respectful conduct but also procedural restraint — avoiding ex parte communications that could compromise both engineers' professional standing and the integrity of the litigation
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
tensionresolution: Professional dignity and litigation integrity both point in the same direction: no direct communication about the litigation without counsel direction
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.981653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Professional Dignity Invoked By Engineer A Supervisory Relationship Over Engineer B
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Adversarial proceeding involving pressure vessel explosion
appliedto: Professional relationship between committee chair and opposing expert subcommittee member
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's committee chairmanship over Engineer B's subcommittee creates a professional supervisory relationship that must be managed with respect for Engineer B's professional dignity and standing — Engineer A must not use the committee authority to influence, pressure, or disadvantage Engineer B in the adversarial proceeding
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Professional dignity in this context requires Engineer A to maintain a clear separation between the committee supervisory role and the adversarial expert witness role, ensuring that the committee relationship is not weaponized against Engineer B's professional standing or used to create an unfair advantage in the litigation
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
tensionresolution: Disclosure of the relationship to all relevant parties, combined with a commitment to maintain the committee role and expert witness role as entirely separate, is the mechanism for protecting Engineer B's professional dignity while allowing Engineer A to proceed with the engagement if appropriate
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.976833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Public_Official_Conflict_of_Interest_Standard_Instance
type: PublicOfficialConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: This Board has examined various situations, including those involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time.
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts
textreferences: Engineer A should be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts
textreferences: This Board has examined various situations, including those involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in tracing the evolution of dual-role conflict analysis across precedents
usedincontext: Professional norms governing engineers in dual public-private roles, applied through BER Cases 67-1, 02-8, and 07-12 to establish the baseline conflict of interest analysis before distinguishing the present case
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.970176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A's authority as committee chair over Engineer B's subcommittee create a power imbalance that could subtly compromise Engineer B's independent technical judgment in future standards work, even if no direct litigation communication occurs?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Should Engineer A consider recusing himself from any committee decisions, evaluations, or actions affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation, even though the Board did not explicitly require this?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the Board's conclusion that no 'clear or apparent' conflict of interest exists adequately account for the reputational harm to the boiler code standards committee itself if the public or legal community perceives that its chair is simultaneously serving as a paid adversarial expert against one of its own members?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: At what point in the engagement process was Engineer A obligated to discover and disclose Engineer B's subcommittee membership — before accepting the retention, at the moment of discovery, or only upon formal engagement — and does a delay in disclosure itself constitute an ethical violation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation — which holds that volunteer committee service should not preclude legitimate professional engagements — conflict with the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance principle when Engineer A's committee chairmanship places him in a supervisory relationship over the opposing expert in active litigation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How does the Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings principle — requiring Engineer A to remain objective and not merely serve the defense's interests — tension with the Honesty principle requiring full disclosure to Attorney X, given that complete transparency about the committee relationship might strategically benefit or harm the defense client?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Professional Dignity principle — requiring Engineer A to treat Engineer B respectfully as a subcommittee member — conflict with the Objectivity principle when Engineer A must render a forensic opinion that directly contradicts or undermines Engineer B's expert conclusions in the same litigation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution principle — which recognizes that disclosure obligations intensify as the supervisory relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B becomes more apparent — conflict with the Standards Committee Role Disclosure principle's relatively static framing of disclosure as a one-time act to Attorney X, potentially leaving ongoing or evolving conflicts undisclosed throughout the litigation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty of full disclosure to Attorney X extend beyond merely reporting the structural facts of the committee relationship, to also proactively assessing and communicating whether that relationship creates a categorical conflict of interest that should preclude his service as a forensic expert altogether?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's willingness to serve as an adversarial expert against Engineer B — a person over whom Engineer A holds institutional supervisory authority as committee chair — reflect the professional integrity and impartiality that a virtuous forensic engineer should embody, even if no formal rule explicitly prohibits the arrangement?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists adequately weigh the downstream risks to the integrity of the boiler code standards committee itself — specifically, whether Engineer A's adversarial posture toward Engineer B in litigation could chill Engineer B's independent technical contributions to the subcommittee and thereby harm the broader public safety mission of the standards body?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.868994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty to avoid conflicts of interest under the NSPE Code create an independent obligation to recuse himself from committee decisions or proceedings that involve Engineer B for the duration of the litigation, regardless of whether Attorney X is satisfied with the disclosure Engineer A provides?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had discovered Engineer B's subcommittee membership only after submitting his initial forensic report to Attorney X rather than before accepting the engagement, would his ethical obligations have shifted from disclosure to mandatory withdrawal, and what standard should govern that determination?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A, rather than merely disclosing the committee relationship to Attorney X, had also proactively notified the engineering society's ethics or governance body about the dual-role situation before proceeding, would that additional step have better protected the integrity of the standards committee and satisfied a higher standard of professional transparency?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: What if Attorney X, upon receiving Engineer A's disclosure about the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership, had decided to retain a different forensic expert with no committee ties — would the Board's ethical analysis suggest that this outcome would have been preferable, and if so, does that implication undercut the Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had chosen to recuse himself from all committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation rather than simply avoiding direct communication with Engineer B about the case, would that structural separation have eliminated the appearance of impropriety more effectively than the communication restraint the Board recommends?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.869328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.872974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T20:09:23.873295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Standards Committee Conflict of Interest Framework - Boiler Code Committee
type: StandardsCommitteeConflictofInterestFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Engineering society standards development organization governance policies
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Standards Committee Conflict of Interest and Ethics Policies
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:33:27.865849+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Standards Committee Conflict of Interest Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
usedby: Engineer A in assessing whether the committee chair-subcommittee member relationship creates a disqualifying conflict for expert witness service
usedincontext: Governs the specific conflict arising from Engineer A's role as chair of the boiler code standards committee while Engineer B — a member of a subcommittee within that committee — serves as the opposing forensic expert, raising questions about hierarchical influence, appearance of partiality, and committee governance integrity
version: Current engineering society governance policies
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.971765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Standards_Committee_Conflict_of_Interest_Framework_Instance
type: StandardsCommitteeConflictofInterestFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering ethics practice and NSPE BER analysis
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Standards Committee Conflict of Interest Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:34:11.492977+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Standards Committee Conflict of Interest Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
textreferences: Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in distinguishing the present case from prior dual-role precedents
usedincontext: Governing framework for analyzing whether Engineer A's simultaneous role as boiler code standards committee chair and forensic expert witness in boiler-related litigation creates an impermissible conflict of interest requiring disclosure or recusal
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.969690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Standards Committee Role Disclosure Invoked By Attorney X
type: StandardsCommitteeRoleDisclosureinExpertWitnessEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assessment of potential conflict or appearance of impropriety in expert witness selection
appliedto: Defense expert witness retention decision
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B in order to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with Engineer A as the defense expert witness
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle operates not only on Engineer A's disclosure obligation but also on Attorney X's right to receive that disclosure — Attorney X cannot make an informed retention decision without knowing that the defense expert chairs the committee on which the opposing expert serves
invokedby: Attorney X Defense Counsel Retaining Forensic Expert
principleclass: Standards Committee Role Disclosure in Expert Witness Engagements
sourcetext: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
tensionresolution: Attorney X's receipt of full disclosure enables an informed decision about whether to proceed with Engineer A, seek a different expert, or take other steps to manage the professional relationship between the two experts
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.975718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Standards Committee Role Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A
type: StandardsCommitteeRoleDisclosureinExpertWitnessEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert witness engagement in personal injury litigation involving pressure vessel explosion
appliedto: Professional relationship between Engineer A (committee chair) and Engineer B (subcommittee member)
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee, is obligated to disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's own committee chairmanship role and the fact that opposing expert Engineer B serves as a member of a technical subcommittee within that same committee, before proceeding with the forensic expert witness engagement
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:37:01.979262+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to affirmatively surface the supervisory committee relationship with the opposing expert to retaining counsel, so that Attorney X can assess whether the relationship creates a conflict, an appearance of impropriety, or a strategic consideration that affects the engagement
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Standards Committee Role Disclosure in Expert Witness Engagements
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
tensionresolution: Disclosure to Attorney X is the mechanism that allows the conflict to be assessed and managed without requiring automatic recusal — the principle does not prohibit the engagement but requires full transparency about the professional relationship
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
textreferences: Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.975532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Standards Committee Role Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
type: StandardsCommitteeRoleDisclosureinExpertWitnessEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic expert engagement in personal injury boiler explosion litigation
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining counsel
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee, must disclose to Attorney X both his own committee chairmanship and the fact that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of Engineer A's technical subcommittees
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The disclosure obligation runs in two directions: Engineer A must disclose his own role (which could affect his credibility or create organizational conflicts) and must disclose Engineer B's subordinate role on his committee (which creates a professional supervisory relationship with the opposing expert that Attorney X must know about to assess proceeding dynamics)
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Standards Committee Role Disclosure in Expert Witness Engagements
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
tensionresolution: Disclosure obligation to retaining counsel prevails; the professional relationship information is not confidential and its disclosure serves the integrity of the proceeding
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.979615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction

Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
type: VolunteerStandardsRoleIndependencePreservationinForensicEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic expert engagement in personal injury boiler explosion litigation
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's forensic opinions as a mechanical and safety engineer are to be rendered independently of his committee chair role — informed by that experience but not controlled by it — and the absence of direct business conflicts means the committee role does not disqualify him from serving as forensic expert
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 129
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 129
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T19:41:42.698595+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board distinguishes between expertise derived from committee service (permissible and valuable) and organizational conflicts created by committee service (which would be disqualifying) — finding only the former present here
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
principleclass: Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation in Forensic Engagements
sourcetext: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
tensionresolution: Independence of judgment is preserved because no direct business relationship exists; committee expertise informs but does not compromise forensic opinion
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
textreferences: It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
textreferences: While Engineer A's opinion may be informed somewhat by his experience in working with safety codes and standards, presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
wasattributedto: Case 129 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T19:54:29.966453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 129 Extraction