ProEthica Case 172 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.757756
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Defendant Attorney Retention
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Creation of an irresolvable conflict of interest adverse to former client
foreseen unintended effects: Inevitable use of confidential information and knowledge acquired during the plaintiff engagement
foreseen unintended effects: Perception that Engineer A was selected precisely because his prior analysis favored the defendant's position
foreseen unintended effects: Violation of residual duty of loyalty and confidentiality owed to Attorney Z and the plaintiff
guided by principle text: An engineer cannot provide truly independent analysis when he has already been immersed in confidential information from the opposing party
guided by principle text: An engineer's duty of confidentiality and loyalty to a former client persists at minimum for the duration of the same legal proceeding
guided by principle text: Engineers must avoid situations where retained knowledge from one client could advantage an adverse party
guided by principle text: Mere termination of a professional relationship does not extinguish residual ethical obligations
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide a new, independent forensic engineering analysis for the defendant's side of the same litigation in exchange for a fee
raises obligation text: Duty to consult with former client Attorney Z before agreeing to work for opposing counsel
requires capability text: Conflict of interest recognition and management
requires capability text: Forensic engineering analysis
requires capability text: Professional judgment to decline conflicted engagements
requires capability text: Safety analysis
temporal marker: After termination by Attorney Z and payment of fee in full; after Attorney X learns of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid conflicts of interest (NSPE Code II.4.b.)
violates obligation text: Duty to disclose conflict of interest and obtain consent of former client before accepting adverse engagement
violates obligation text: Duty to protect confidential client information acquired during prior engagement (NSPE Code III.4.b.)
violates obligation text: Residual duty of loyalty and trust to former client Attorney Z and the plaintiff for the duration of the legal proceeding
within competence: true
comment: After his services with Attorney Z are terminated, Engineer A agrees to be retained by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) to provide a purportedly separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant in the same personal injury case.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Accept Plaintiff Forensic Retention
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Access to confidential plaintiff documents and information that would create residual obligations
foreseen unintended effects: Potential future conflict if analysis results did not support the retaining party
fulfills obligation text: Legitimate acceptance of professional engagement within area of competence
fulfills obligation text: Willingness to apply objective engineering judgment to litigation support
guided by principle text: Engineers may provide forensic consulting services as legitimate professional practice
guided by principle text: Objective engineering analysis in service of the legal process
guided by principle text: Professional competence in forensic engineering
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide professional forensic engineering services, including analysis and expert testimony, in exchange for a fee
requires capability text: Expert witness testimony
requires capability text: Forensic engineering analysis
requires capability text: Safety analysis
requires capability text: Technical report writing
temporal marker: Initial engagement, before case review begins
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A agrees to be retained by Attorney Z as a forensic engineering consultant to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of the plaintiff in a personal injury case.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Accept Plaintiff Forensic Retention (Action 1) → Plaintiff Engagement Established (Event 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: A formal forensic consulting relationship is created between Attorney Z and Engineer A upon hiring
cause: Accept Plaintiff Forensic Retention (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's acceptance, no formal engagement would exist, no confidential information would be shared, and no subsequent conflict could arise from this relationship
effect: Plaintiff Engagement Established (Event 1)
necessary factors: Attorney Z's offer of engagement
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional decision to accept the retention
necessary factors: Formation of a formal consulting relationship with attendant duties
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Engineer A's acceptance + Attorney Z's retention offer = binding professional relationship with confidentiality and loyalty obligations
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard
type: AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (through accumulated BER decisions)
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another.
textreferences: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's ethical obligations when switching from plaintiff's expert to defendant's expert within the same legal proceeding, including the prohibition on representing adverse interests without former client consent and the duty to protect confidential information
version: N/A — derived from NSPE Code and BER precedents
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.762824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard-Instance
type: AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
usedby: Engineer A and Attorney X when evaluating the propriety of the new engagement
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to manage potential conflicts arising from prior engagement by opposing counsel in the same litigation, including limits on loyalty to former client Attorney Z and protection of confidential information gained during that engagement
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.759616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Analysis Points To Plaintiff Fault
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_Not_To_Deceive_Constraint
activates constraint: Honesty_And_Objectivity_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Truthfulness_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A's role shifts from potential plaintiff-supporting expert to a consultant whose findings are adverse to the retaining party; the engagement becomes untenable for Attorney Z's purposes while Engineer A's knowledge of case strategy and evidence becomes sensitive
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Communicate_Findings_Honestly_To_Retaining_Attorney
creates obligation: Decline_To_Produce_Report_Unsupported_By_Evidence
creates obligation: Preserve_Confidentiality_Of_Findings_And_Case_Strategy
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After reviewing evidence, during the forensic engagement
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A's independent technical review of the evidence produces a conclusion that fault lies with the plaintiff rather than the defendant, an outcome that is determined by the objective facts of the case rather than by Engineer A's preferences or choices. This finding is an evidentiary outcome, not a decision.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Attorney X Defense Attorney Adverse Retention Motivation Awareness
type: AdverseRetentionMotivationRecognitionandEthicalResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Attorney X demonstrated awareness of the exploitation-motivated nature of his retention approach — he specifically sought Engineer A because of Engineer A's prior plaintiff-side access and adverse conclusion — but proceeded with the retention without ensuring Engineer A had obtained the necessary consent from the original client.
casecontext: Attorney X, as the retaining party, had an awareness of the prior engagement circumstances that should have prompted him to ensure the ethical prerequisites for the retention were satisfied.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Attorney X's explicit knowledge of 'the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case' before seeking retention demonstrates awareness of the prior engagement and its implications.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Attorney X Defense Retaining Attorney
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.770350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Attorney X Defense Attorney Retaining Forensic Expert
type: DefenseAttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'party_represented': 'Defendant', 'proceeding': 'Same legal proceeding as prior engagement', 'motivation': 'Expected favorable report from Engineer A based on termination circumstances'}
caseinvolvement: Attorney X is the defense-side attorney who retained Engineer A knowing (or having reason to know) that Engineer A had previously been engaged by the opposing plaintiff's attorney in the same proceeding. The Board found that the real reason for retaining Engineer A was the expectation of a favorable report, making this engagement ethically impermissible.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:07:49.365202+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:07:49.365202+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_party', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Forensic Retaining Attorney'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_engineer', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable
textreferences: His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X
textreferences: the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.761362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Attorney X learns of Engineer A's termination circumstances before Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A
from entity text: Attorney X learns of Engineer A's termination circumstances
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A before Engineer A agrees to provide report for Attorney X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report. Engineer A agrees to provide the report
from entity text: Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A agrees to provide report for Attorney X
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A agrees to provide report for Attorney X
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Trigger Instance
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Attorney Z's transmission of confidential information, documents, and case materials to Engineer A during the forensic engagement triggered Engineer A's Section III.4 confidentiality obligations, establishing the boundary within which Engineer A was required to operate even after termination of the engagement
casecontext: Attorney Z retained Engineer A and transmitted confidential case materials to him, triggering the Section III.4 confidentiality obligation that persisted after termination and prohibited Engineer A from accepting defense-side retention in the same matter
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Provision of confidential information, documents, and cooperative access to Engineer A during the forensic engagement, which the BER identified as the triggering condition for Engineer A's ongoing confidentiality and loyalty obligations
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Attorney Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
textreferences: Citing the provisions of Section III.4.b., we found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER-Case-74-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: BER Case 74-2: Part-Time Consultant Arrangement and Undivided Loyalty
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: this Board distinguished that case from earlier BER Case 74-2 in which the Board held that a part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering service
textreferences: the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided
textreferences: this Board distinguished that case from earlier BER Case 74-2 in which the Board held that a part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering service
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Precedent holding that part-time consultant arrangements with municipalities do not preclude normal engineering services to those same municipalities, provided loyalties are not divided; used to distinguish the present case where loyalties are clearly divided
version: 1974
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.762397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER-Case-76-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: BER Case 76-3: Engineer as Expert Witness While Serving as Paid Consultant to Opposing Party
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 76-3, a decision involving an engineer appearing as an expert witness for a private development company before a county board while serving as a paid consultant to the county
textreferences: In BER Case 76-3, a decision involving an engineer appearing as an expert witness for a private development company before a county board while serving as a paid consultant to the county
textreferences: In some instances, it has been suggested by this Board that under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for an engineer to first resign a particular position... (See BER Case 76-3.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Foundational precedent establishing that an engineer serving as a paid consultant to a county while simultaneously acting as expert witness for a private development company before that county creates an unavoidable conflict of interest; also establishes that resignation from one role may be required before accepting a conflicting engagement
version: 1976
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.759147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER-Case-82-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: BER Case 82-2: Unauthorized Release of Home Inspection Report to Opposing Party
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 82-2, a decision involving an engineer who prepared a home inspection report for a client, a potential home purchaser, and thereafter released the contents of the report to the real estate firm representing the seller of the home without the consent of the client, the Board ruled that this action was not in accord with the Code of Ethics
textreferences: in BER Case 82-2, a decision involving an engineer who prepared a home inspection report for a client, a potential home purchaser, and thereafter released the contents of the report to the real estate firm representing the seller of the home without the consent of the client, the Board ruled that this action was not in accord with the Code of Ethics
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that releasing client-confidential engineering report contents to a third party without client consent violates the Code of Ethics; applied to reinforce Engineer A's duty to protect information obtained from plaintiff's attorney
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.762533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER-Case-82-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: BER Case 82-6: Engineer Retained by Government Accepting Engagement from Adverse Contractor
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 82-6, this Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the U.S. government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would be unethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam
textreferences: in BER Case 82-6, this Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the U.S. government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would be unethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that an engineer retained by the U.S. government to study a dam failure cannot ethically agree to represent the contractor (adverse party) in a claim against the government without former client consent; directly analogous to Engineer A switching from plaintiff to defendant representation
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.762684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER-Case-Precedent-Forensic-Sequential-Representation
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Forensic Engineer Sequential Party Representation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report
usedby: Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in analogical reasoning about the propriety of the switch
usedincontext: Prior BER decisions addressing whether a forensic engineer who was retained and then released by one party in litigation may subsequently be retained by the opposing party in the same case provide analogical reasoning for evaluating Engineer A's situation
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.760071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 74-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 74-2 before BER Case 76-3
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In BER Case 76-3, this Board distinguished that case from earlier BER Case 74-2
from entity text: BER Case 74-2
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 76-3
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 76-3
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 76-3 Paid Advocacy Conflict — Engineer A County Consultant
type: PaidAdvocacyDisplacingExpertWitnessObjectivityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During Engineer A's simultaneous service as county consultant and expert witness for the development company before the county board
affectedparties: County
affectedparties: County board
affectedparties: Engineer A (BER 76-3)
affectedparties: Private development company
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the county engineers
stateclass: Paid Advocacy Displacing Expert Witness Objectivity State
subject: Engineer A in BER Case 76-3 acting as paid advocate for private development company while serving as paid consultant to the county — the precedent case establishing the advocacy-objectivity conflict
terminatedby: Board determination that the arrangement was unacceptable
textreferences: Engineer A's role as an expert witness in the ordinary sense of that kind of professional arrangement would be unacceptable
textreferences: When Engineer A was approached, while still on retainer to the county, by the development company, it should have been quite clear to him that a conflict of interest was inevitable
textreferences: he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the county engineers
triggeringevent: Development company approaching Engineer A while he was still on retainer to the county
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.764461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 76-3 before BER Case 82-2
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More recently in BER Case 82-2... In BER Case 76-3, this Board distinguished that case from earlier BER Case 74-2
from entity text: BER Case 76-3
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 82-2
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 82-2
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 82-2 equals BER Case 82-6
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: equals
evidence: During the same term, in BER Case 82-6, this Board ruled
from entity text: BER Case 82-2
owl time property: time:intervalEquals
to entity text: BER Case 82-6
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
interval equals: BER Case 82-6
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 82-6 Former Client Consent Absent for Cross-Side Representation
type: ContinuingPost-TerminationLoyaltyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From conclusion of government engagement through contractor's approach
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer (BER 82-6)
affectedparties: U.S. Government
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor in its claim against the government for additional compensation
stateclass: Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation State
subject: Engineer in BER Case 82-6 retained by U.S. government to study dam failure, subsequently approached by contractor (opposing party) without former client's consent — precedent establishing post-engagement loyalty obligations
terminatedby: Board determination that the cross-side engagement was unethical absent prior client consent
textreferences: there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor in its claim against the government for additional compensation
triggeringevent: Contractor filing claim against U.S. government and approaching engineer who had studied the dam failure for the government
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.765144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Case 172 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 6
total elements: 11
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Defendant Attorney Rete
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Plaintiff Forensic Rete
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

CausalLink_Decline Favorable Plaintiff Re
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

CausalLink_Fail to Recognize Irresolvable
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

CausalLink_Omit Disclosure to Former Clie
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to agree to provide a separate engineering and safety analysis report.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's agreement to provide a separate defense-side report was unethical, the structural nature of the conflict reveals that no procedural remedy — including Engineer A's pledge to produce an independent report, his formal termination by Attorney Z, or his full payment of fees — could dissolve the ethical bar created by his prior confidential plaintiff-side engagement. The conflict is not merely procedural or remediable by disclosure; it is substantive and structural. Engineer A obtained confidential case strategy, analysis, and factual framing from the plaintiff's attorney during the initial engagement. That information cannot be mentally segregated from any subsequent analysis he might conduct, regardless of his stated intent. The framing of the defense report as 'separate' and 'independent' does not alter the underlying reality that Engineer A's analytical starting point, his knowledge of the plaintiff's vulnerabilities, and his awareness of the case's evidentiary landscape were all shaped by confidential access obtained in a fiduciary-adjacent capacity. The Board's conclusion therefore rests not merely on a rule against switching sides, but on the deeper recognition that the integrity of the adversarial proceeding itself is compromised when a forensic expert carries insider knowledge across party lines in an active matter.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 4 b
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 202
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.4.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion is further deepened by examining the motivational structure of Attorney X's retention of Engineer A. Attorney X did not seek Engineer A because of his general forensic expertise or reputation in the field; he sought Engineer A precisely because he had learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination — specifically, that Engineer A's analysis pointed to plaintiff fault. This means Attorney X's retention was motivated by the desire to exploit Engineer A's prior confidential access and adverse findings, not merely to obtain an objective expert. Engineer A bore an independent ethical obligation to recognize this motivated retention as itself ethically problematic and to decline the engagement on that basis alone, separate from and in addition to the switching-sides prohibition. By accepting the retention without apparent scrutiny of Attorney X's motivations, Engineer A failed to exercise the pre-acceptance conflict screening that the NSPE Code and relevant BER precedents require. This failure compounds the primary violation: not only did Engineer A switch sides in an active proceeding, but he did so in a context where the very reason for his retention was his insider status — making the conflict not incidental but central to the engagement's purpose.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: A nuance the Board did not explicitly address is the question of whether Engineer A had a pre-termination obligation to proactively disclose to Attorney Z that his findings were adverse to the plaintiff and to discuss the ethical implications of that situation before allowing the engagement to be passively terminated. The NSPE Code's requirements of honesty, objectivity, and avoidance of deception suggest that Engineer A's silence about the nature of his findings — simply allowing termination to occur without a full discussion of the ethical landscape — may itself constitute a partial ethical failure independent of the subsequent defense retention. Had Engineer A engaged in that pre-termination discussion, two consequences might have followed: first, Attorney Z and the plaintiff would have had the opportunity to provide or withhold consent to any future adverse participation, satisfying the consent-prerequisite mechanism embedded in the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition; and second, Engineer A's own ethical obligations going forward would have been clarified and potentially altered by that disclosure. The absence of this pre-termination discussion left the plaintiff without the ability to exercise the consent mechanism that the Code implicitly preserves, and it left Engineer A without the moral clarity that such a discussion would have provided. This omission, while not the primary violation identified by the Board, reinforces the conclusion that Engineer A's conduct across the entire sequence of events — from initial termination through defense retention — reflected a systemic failure to engage with his ethical obligations as a forensic expert in an adversarial proceeding.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.283814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Regarding Q101: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose to Attorney Z, before termination, that his findings pointed to plaintiff fault and to discuss the ethical implications of that situation. The NSPE Code's honesty and integrity provisions, combined with the forensic expert's non-advocate role, required Engineer A to communicate adverse findings transparently rather than simply allowing the engagement to dissolve. This pre-termination disclosure obligation was not merely procedural; it would have given Attorney Z the opportunity to understand the full scope of Engineer A's analysis, potentially invoke confidentiality protections more explicitly, and make informed decisions about how to handle the termination. By failing to engage in this discussion, Engineer A left the circumstances of his termination in a form that could be — and was — exploited by opposing counsel. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A violated switching-sides obligations is deepened by recognizing that the pre-termination disclosure failure was a contributing antecedent ethical lapse, not merely a background fact.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 4 b
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.4.b.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Regarding Q102: Attorney X's deliberate targeting of Engineer A precisely because of his prior plaintiff-side engagement and the circumstances of his termination constitutes an ethically problematic exploitation of a structural conflict, and Engineer A bears independent responsibility for recognizing and refusing that motivated retention. The fact that Attorney X sought out Engineer A not for his general forensic expertise but specifically because he had reviewed confidential plaintiff materials and reached adverse conclusions transforms the retention from a routine expert engagement into a calculated attempt to weaponize the plaintiff's own confidential analytical process. Engineer A's capability to recognize adverse retention motivation was engaged the moment Attorney X disclosed the basis for his interest, and Engineer A's failure to exercise that capability — his Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition Deficit — constitutes a distinct ethical failure layered on top of the switching-sides violation. A forensic engineer of integrity must recognize when he is being retained not for his independent expertise but as a conduit for the opposing party's confidential information, and must decline such retention regardless of his stated intent to produce an objective report.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Regarding Q103: The confidential information Engineer A obtained during the plaintiff-side engagement is not truly segregable from any independent analysis he might conduct for the defense, and this mental segregation impossibility alone constitutes a sufficient independent bar to the defense engagement regardless of Engineer A's stated intent to produce an independent report. During his plaintiff-side engagement, Engineer A necessarily absorbed not only raw technical data but also the plaintiff's litigation strategy, the framing of the case, the specific vulnerabilities Attorney Z was concerned about, and the analytical pathways that led to adverse findings. These elements cannot be compartmentalized through an act of professional will. Any defense-side analysis Engineer A produces will inevitably be shaped — consciously or unconsciously — by his prior exposure to the plaintiff's confidential case architecture. The Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition capability, which Engineer A failed to deploy, reflects a structural reality: the mind cannot un-know what it has learned in a confidential professional context, and the pledge to produce an independent report does not alter the cognitive contamination that has already occurred. This conclusion reinforces the Board's finding that the independent report framing cannot cure the underlying conflict.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Regarding Q104: The switching-sides prohibition does not extend indefinitely to all future matters in which Engineer A previously held a confidential plaintiff-side engagement, but it does persist for the duration of the same proceeding and likely for any matter in which the confidential information obtained remains materially relevant. Had the personal injury case been fully concluded and closed before Attorney X approached Engineer A, the ethical calculus would shift significantly, though it would not automatically become permissible. The Unrelated Matter Permissibility Boundary constraint establishes that Engineer A's prohibition is keyed to the same-matter identity of the proceeding. However, even in a concluded matter, the post-termination confidentiality obligation under Code Section II.1.c. would continue to bar Engineer A from deploying plaintiff confidential information in any subsequent context. The distinction is that in a concluded matter, there is no ongoing adversarial proceeding to contaminate, no active plaintiff position to undermine, and no structural conflict of divided loyalty — but the confidentiality duty itself survives. Thus, the prohibition has two analytically distinct components: the switching-sides bar, which is proceeding-duration-limited, and the confidentiality perpetuation obligation, which is indefinite.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: Regarding Q201: The Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity principle and the Switching Sides Prohibition do not genuinely conflict — they operate on different analytical planes — but their interaction creates a paradox that must be explicitly resolved. Engineer A's demonstrated objectivity in refusing to produce a favorable but inaccurate plaintiff report is precisely the quality that makes him attractive to the defense, yet that same objectivity cannot cure the structural conflict created by accepting the defense engagement. The resolution of this apparent tension lies in recognizing that objectivity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical forensic engagement. Objectivity governs the quality and integrity of the work product; the switching-sides prohibition governs the structural permissibility of the engagement itself. An engineer can be perfectly objective and still be ethically barred from an engagement because of the relational and confidentiality obligations that pre-exist the question of report quality. Engineer A's objectivity is not irrelevant — it is what makes him a credible forensic expert — but it cannot serve as a waiver of structural ethical constraints that exist independently of report quality.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: Regarding Q202 and Q204: The apparent conflict between the Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy principle and the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary acknowledgment is resolved by recognizing that these principles operate at different levels of obligation intensity. Engineer A is not bound by absolute loyalty to the plaintiff — he correctly refused to produce a false favorable report — but he is bound by a perpetual confidentiality obligation and a proceeding-duration structural conflict prohibition. The Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary acknowledges that Engineer A need not be the plaintiff's champion, but it does not license him to become the plaintiff's adversary in the same proceeding using knowledge gained in confidence. Similarly, the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition's consent-prerequisite mechanism, as raised in Q204, does not render the prohibition merely consent-dependent in a way that undermines its force. Rather, the consent mechanism acknowledges that the prohibition exists to protect the former client's interests, and that the former client — as the party whose interests are at stake — has the authority to waive that protection. The absence of plaintiff consent in this case is therefore not a procedural technicality but a substantive indicator that the structural conflict remains live and unresolved.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 4 b
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
cited provision3: II.4.b.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: Regarding Q301 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A violated two analytically distinct categorical duties. First, he violated a duty of structural loyalty — not absolute advocacy loyalty, but the duty not to become an instrument of adversarial action against a former client in the same matter in which confidential trust was extended. This duty is categorical in the sense that it does not yield to consequentialist calculations about the quality or independence of the resulting report. Second, and independently, Engineer A violated a perpetual duty of confidentiality that attaches to all information transmitted by the plaintiff through Attorney Z during the engagement. This duty persists beyond termination as a matter of categorical obligation under Code Section II.1.c., and any post-termination adverse participation in the same matter constitutes a per se breach of that duty regardless of Engineer A's intent to keep the report independent. The deontological analysis thus yields two independent grounds for finding Engineer A's conduct unethical, each sufficient on its own, and their conjunction makes the violation particularly clear.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4 b
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.4.b.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: Regarding Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the harms generated by Engineer A's acceptance of the defense retention substantially outweigh any benefit derived from his ostensibly independent and objective report. The harms include: (1) structural contamination of the adversarial proceeding's integrity, because the defense gains access to an expert whose analytical conclusions were shaped in part by confidential plaintiff information; (2) direct harm to the plaintiff's litigation position, because the circumstances of Engineer A's termination — now known to opposing counsel — effectively signal to the defense the weaknesses in the plaintiff's case; (3) systemic harm to the institution of forensic engineering, because permitting switching-sides conduct incentivizes retaining attorneys to terminate unhelpful experts strategically in order to make them available to the opposition; and (4) erosion of client trust in forensic expert engagements generally, as clients cannot safely share confidential information with experts if termination of the engagement removes all structural protections. The benefit — an additional independent technical analysis — is marginal, because the defense could retain any number of other qualified forensic engineers without these structural harms. The consequentialist calculus therefore strongly supports the Board's conclusion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: Regarding Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and honesty expected of a forensic engineer when he accepted the defense retention. A forensic engineer of genuine integrity would have recognized that Attorney X's motivation for retaining him was not his general expertise but his specific prior access to the plaintiff's confidential case analysis, and would have understood that accepting such a retention — regardless of the quality of the resulting work — would compromise the character of his professional practice. Virtue ethics asks not merely whether the act was permissible but whether it reflects the character of a person of professional integrity. Engineer A's initial refusal to produce a favorable but inaccurate plaintiff report demonstrated exactly the kind of integrity the forensic engineering role demands. His subsequent acceptance of the defense retention, knowing the basis for Attorney X's interest, represents a failure to sustain that integrity through the full arc of the engagement. The virtuous forensic engineer would have declined the defense retention and, if appropriate, disclosed to Attorney X the ethical reasons for that declination.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: Regarding Q401: Engineer A's acceptance of the defense retention would have been significantly more defensible — though not automatically permissible — if the personal injury case had been fully resolved and closed before Attorney X approached him. In a concluded matter, the proceeding-duration loyalty floor and the same-matter adversarial conflict prohibition would no longer be operative, because there is no ongoing proceeding to contaminate and no active plaintiff position to undermine through structural conflict. However, two residual ethical constraints would remain. First, the perpetual confidentiality obligation under Code Section II.1.c. would continue to bar Engineer A from deploying or relying upon plaintiff confidential information in any subsequent engagement. Second, Engineer A would need to assess whether the subject matter of any new engagement was sufficiently distinct from the concluded matter that his prior confidential knowledge would not materially influence his new analysis. If those conditions could be satisfied — if the matter were truly concluded and Engineer A could genuinely produce an analysis independent of his prior confidential knowledge — then the engagement might be permissible. The critical distinction is that the switching-sides prohibition is proceeding-duration-specific, while the confidentiality obligation is indefinite.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 4 b
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.4.b.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: Regarding Q402: Engineer A's proactive disclosure of his prior plaintiff-side engagement to Attorney X before agreeing to the defense retention would have been ethically required as a matter of conflict screening, but it would not have cured the underlying ethical violation. The Pre-Acceptance Conflict Screening obligation required Engineer A to identify and disclose the conflict before accepting the retention, and his failure to do so constitutes a distinct procedural ethical lapse. However, even if Engineer A had fully disclosed his prior engagement and Attorney X had proceeded with full knowledge of that conflict, the structural bar to the engagement would remain. The switching-sides prohibition and the former client consent prerequisite are not satisfied by defense attorney knowledge of the conflict — they require the consent of the former client, the plaintiff, whose interests are at stake. Attorney X's informed acceptance of the conflict does not substitute for plaintiff consent, because the plaintiff is the party whose confidential information is at risk and whose litigation position is adversely affected. Disclosure to the retaining attorney is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving the conflict.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: Regarding Q403: If Engineer A had raised the ethical conflict with Attorney Z before his services were terminated — specifically disclosing that his findings were adverse to the plaintiff and discussing the implications — this pre-termination disclosure would have altered his subsequent ethical obligations in meaningful but not dispositive ways. Such disclosure would have fulfilled the Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation, which the Board identified as violated. It would also have given Attorney Z the opportunity to explicitly invoke confidentiality protections, to document the scope of confidential information shared, and potentially to seek protective measures against subsequent adverse use of that information. However, pre-termination disclosure would not have eliminated the switching-sides prohibition or the former client consent prerequisite for subsequent defense engagement. What it would have done is place Engineer A in a cleaner ethical posture: having fulfilled his disclosure obligations to the original client, he would then face the remaining question of whether plaintiff consent had been obtained for defense engagement — and absent such consent, the defense engagement would remain impermissible. The pre-termination disclosure failure thus compounds the switching-sides violation but does not constitute its sole basis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Regarding Q404: If Attorney X had sought to retain Engineer A for a completely unrelated personal injury case involving different parties and facts, rather than the same proceeding in which he had reviewed confidential plaintiff information, the ethical outcome would differ substantially. The switching-sides prohibition and the same-matter adversarial conflict bar are keyed to the identity of the proceeding and the parties involved. In an unrelated matter, there would be no structural conflict of divided loyalty, no ongoing adversarial proceeding to contaminate, and no former client whose active litigation position would be undermined. The Unrelated Matter Permissibility Boundary constraint confirms this distinction. However, even in an unrelated matter, Engineer A would retain a residual obligation to ensure that no confidential information obtained during the plaintiff-side engagement in the original case was material to or deployable in the new engagement. If the new matter were factually and legally distinct such that the prior confidential knowledge had no bearing on the new analysis, the engagement would be permissible. The ethical bar is thus matter-specific and party-specific, not a general prohibition on Engineer A serving defense clients in any personal injury case.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The most significant principle tension in this case — between the Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity principle and the Switching Sides Prohibition — was resolved decisively in favor of the structural prohibition, and that resolution carries an important lesson: objectivity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical forensic participation. Engineer A correctly applied the objectivity principle in the initial engagement by refusing to produce a favorable but inaccurate plaintiff report. That same objectivity made him attractive to the defense. But the Board's conclusion makes clear that genuine technical independence cannot cure a structural conflict of interest arising from prior same-matter confidential engagement. The two principles do not cancel each other out; rather, they operate on different planes. Objectivity governs the quality and honesty of the expert's analysis; the switching sides prohibition governs the structural permissibility of the engagement itself. An engineer can be perfectly objective and still be ethically barred from participating. This case teaches that structural conflict rules function as threshold gatekeeping conditions that precede and override merit-based considerations such as the expert's demonstrated impartiality.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.b.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy principle and the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary principle exist in apparent tension but are reconciled in this case by recognizing that they operate on different axes of obligation. The Board acknowledges that Engineer A is not bound by absolute loyalty to the plaintiff — he was not required to suppress his findings or produce a false report. That boundary correctly limits the loyalty principle to prevent it from becoming a tool of corruption. However, the confidentiality obligation is categorically different: it persists indefinitely post-termination and is not diminished by the fact that Engineer A's findings happened to be adverse to the plaintiff. The reconciliation principle this case establishes is that the termination of a loyalty obligation (Engineer A need not advocate for the plaintiff) does not simultaneously terminate the confidentiality obligation (Engineer A may not deploy plaintiff case knowledge in an adverse engagement). These two obligations have different durations and different triggers. Loyalty ends when the engagement ends; confidentiality does not. Engineer A's acceptance of the defense retention conflated these two distinct obligations, treating the end of loyalty as though it also ended confidentiality, which the Board implicitly rejects.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 b
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 4 b
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: III.4.b.
cited provision2: II.4.b.
cited provision3: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: This case establishes a hierarchy among competing forensic engineering principles in which structural conflict prohibitions rank above both disclosure mechanisms and objectivity affirmations. Three principles that might individually seem to mitigate or cure the ethical problem — Engineer A's demonstrated objectivity, his pledge to produce an independent report, and the fact that his engagement was formally terminated before the defense retention — are each independently insufficient to override the switching sides prohibition and the former client adversarial participation prohibition. The case thereby teaches that in the forensic engineering context, the ethical framework treats certain structural conflicts as non-waivable by the engineer's own conduct or representations. Only the former client's consent — a condition entirely outside Engineer A's control and conspicuously absent here — could theoretically lift the bar. This consent-prerequisite mechanism reveals that the prohibition is not truly absolute in a metaphysical sense but is absolute from the engineer's unilateral perspective: Engineer A cannot cure the conflict through any action of his own. The principle prioritization that emerges is: (1) former client consent prerequisite as the threshold condition; (2) structural conflict prohibition as the operative bar absent that consent; (3) objectivity and disclosure as relevant but subordinate considerations that cannot substitute for consent. This hierarchy has significant implications for how forensic engineers must screen engagements before acceptance rather than attempting to manage conflicts after the fact.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Confidential Information Constructive Retention Non-Blotting Engineer A Post-Termination
type: TerminatedEngagementConfidentialInformationPerpetualNon-Adversarial-UseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's acceptance of the defense engagement implicitly assumed he could compartmentalize or disregard the confidential information obtained during the plaintiff-side engagement; the Board rejected this assumption as factually and ethically untenable.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Terminated Engagement Confidential Information Perpetual Non-Adversarial-Use Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not treat the termination of his plaintiff-side engagement as enabling him to 'blot all' confidential information from his mind and start from 'square one' — the confidential information, documents, and case knowledge obtained during the plaintiff-side engagement remained constructively retained and could not be adversarially deployed against the plaintiff in the same proceeding.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section III.4
sourcetext: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one' in performing his engineering and safety analysis report
temporalscope: From termination of plaintiff-side engagement through the duration of the proceeding
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one' in performing his engineering and safety analysis report
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.777943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Confidential Knowledge Retained Post-Termination
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Post_Engagement_Confidentiality_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Using_Retained_Knowledge_Against_Former_Client_Constraint
activates constraint: Residual_Knowledge_Conflict_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A carries an invisible but ethically significant burden of confidential knowledge that constrains future professional choices; this knowledge cannot be compartmentalized or selectively forgotten; it creates a permanent conflict risk for the duration of the legal proceeding
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Disclose_Existence_Of_Prior_Knowledge_When_Approached_By_Opposing_Party
creates obligation: Refrain_From_Using_Retained_Knowledge_To_Benefit_Adverse_Party
creates obligation: Treat_All_Retained_Case_Information_As_Permanently_Confidential
emergency status: high
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Continuously, from termination of plaintiff engagement through defendant retention
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: high
comment: Following termination of the plaintiff engagement, Engineer A continues to hold in memory all technical findings, case strategy information, evidence assessments, and analytical conclusions acquired during the forensic review. This retention of knowledge is an automatic and unavoidable outcome of having performed the engagement, not a volitional act.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conflict Of Interest Crystallized
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Appearance_Of_Impropriety_Constraint
activates constraint: Confidentiality_Breach_Risk_Constraint
activates constraint: Irresolvable_Conflict_Of_Interest_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Adverse_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A is now in an ethically untenable dual-knowledge position; the conflict is not merely potential but actual and irresolvable for the duration of the legal proceeding; any work product Engineer A produces for Attorney X is tainted by the conflict; the professional integrity of the entire forensic process is compromised
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Immediate_Withdrawal_From_Defendant_Engagement
creates obligation: Notification_To_Attorney_X_Of_Prior_Conflicting_Engagement
creates obligation: Potential_Disclosure_To_Professional_Ethics_Board
creates obligation: Refusal_To_Produce_Report_Until_Conflict_Resolved
emergency status: critical
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: At the moment Engineer A agrees to work for Attorney X
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: critical
comment: Upon Engineer A agreeing to work for Attorney X, a direct and irresolvable conflict of interest is created: Engineer A now holds confidential knowledge from the plaintiff's engagement and is simultaneously working to produce analysis favorable to the defendant in the same legal proceeding. This conflict is an automatic ethical outcome of the retention, not a separate decision.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Avoidance — Engineer A Same-Matter Dual-Side Structural Conflict
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The structural conflict arose from Engineer A having served plaintiff's side in the same active litigation, having received confidential information, and then agreeing to serve the defendant's side — creating an irresolvable conflict of interest that the NSPE Code and BER precedent prohibit.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to avoid the structural conflict of interest created by accepting retention by the defendant's attorney in the same personal injury case in which he had previously served as the plaintiff's forensic consultant — a conflict that was irresolvable by disclosure alone given the same-matter identity and prior confidential access.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.4; NSPE Code Section III.4.b; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
temporalscope: From the moment Attorney X sought Engineer A's retention through the conclusion of the litigation
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
textreferences: Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.772148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A accept retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same active personal injury proceeding in which he previously held a confidential plaintiff-side engagement, or decline on the basis that termination of the prior engagement does not cure the structural conflict?
focus: Engineer A, having been retained by Attorney Z on behalf of the plaintiff and having gained access to confidential case documents and strategic analysis, is approached by Attorney X (defense counsel) after his engagement is terminated. Engineer A must decide whether to accept the defense retention in the same active personal injury proceeding, recognizing that termination of the prior engagement does not extinguish his confidentiality and loyalty obligations, and that Attorney X's motivation for seeking him is transparently linked to his prior plaintiff-side access.
option1: Refuse Attorney X's retention on the grounds that the prior plaintiff-side engagement in the same active proceeding creates an irremediable structural conflict that termination alone cannot cure, and that Attorney X's motivation — exploiting prior confidential access — independently disqualifies the engagement.
option2: Accept the defense retention on the basis that the prior engagement was formally terminated, that Engineer A is no longer bound by loyalty to the plaintiff, and that his pledge to produce a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report is sufficient to manage any residual conflict.
option3: Condition acceptance of the defense retention on obtaining the informed consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff, recognizing that the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition contains a consent-prerequisite mechanism that could theoretically lift the structural bar if all interested parties agree.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A treat his pledge to produce a separate and independent defense-side report as sufficient to cure the ethical conflict arising from his prior plaintiff-side confidential engagement, or must he recognize that mental segregation of prior confidential knowledge is impossible and that the pledge cannot override the structural bar?
focus: Engineer A agreed to provide a 'separate and independent' engineering and safety analysis report for the defense as a means of framing the engagement as free from the taint of his prior plaintiff-side work. The board must assess whether this pledge of independence — combined with Engineer A's demonstrated objectivity in refusing to produce a false plaintiff report — is sufficient to cure the structural conflict created by his prior confidential access to the plaintiff's case materials, or whether the mental segregation of that knowledge is impossible and the pledge therefore illusory.
option1: Acknowledge that the pledge to produce an independent report cannot cure the structural conflict created by prior confidential plaintiff-side access, because the mind cannot un-know what it learned in confidence, and decline the defense engagement on that basis regardless of stated intent to be objective.
option2: Proceed with the defense engagement on the basis that Engineer A's prior refusal to produce a false plaintiff report demonstrates genuine independence of judgment, and that a technically rigorous defense report produced from first principles satisfies the forensic expert's non-advocate obligation regardless of prior engagement history.
option3: Accept the defense engagement but formally restrict the scope of analysis to physical evidence and publicly available data, explicitly excluding any reliance on information obtained during the plaintiff-side engagement, and document this limitation in the engagement agreement as a structural safeguard against confidential information contamination.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively disclose to Attorney Z, before allowing the engagement to be terminated, that his findings are adverse to the plaintiff and discuss the ethical implications of that situation — including the risk of subsequent defense retention — or may he allow the engagement to dissolve passively without that discussion?
focus: Before his engagement with Attorney Z was terminated, Engineer A had determined that his analysis pointed to plaintiff fault and that he could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff. Rather than proactively disclosing this finding and discussing the ethical implications with Attorney Z — including the risk that termination would make him available to opposing counsel — Engineer A allowed the engagement to dissolve passively. This pre-termination omission left Attorney Z and the plaintiff without the opportunity to invoke consent mechanisms, assert confidentiality protections, or otherwise respond to the emerging conflict before it crystallized.
option1: Before allowing the engagement to be terminated, proactively inform Attorney Z that the analysis points to plaintiff fault, explain the ethical dilemma this creates — including the risk that termination could make Engineer A available to opposing counsel — and give Attorney Z the opportunity to respond, invoke confidentiality protections, or address the conflict.
option2: Decline to produce the plaintiff-favorable report and allow Attorney Z to terminate the engagement without proactively raising the adverse findings or the ethical implications of termination, on the basis that the decision to terminate belongs to the client and that Engineer A's duty of honesty is satisfied by refusing to produce a false report.
option3: Communicate the adverse findings to Attorney Z in a formal written withdrawal letter that documents the scope of analysis conducted and the basis for Engineer A's inability to continue, without explicitly raising the risk of subsequent defense retention, thereby creating a record of the findings while leaving the ethical implications of termination for Attorney Z to assess independently.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A accept Attorney X's defense-side retention in the same active personal injury proceeding in which he previously held a confidential plaintiff-side engagement, or decline on the basis of the switching-sides prohibition and former client consent prerequisite?
focus: Engineer A: Switching Sides and Former Client Consent Prerequisite in Same Active Proceeding
option1: Refuse Attorney X's retention on the grounds that the switching-sides prohibition and the former client consent prerequisite bar participation in the same active proceeding, and notify Attorney X of the ethical reasons for declination.
option2: Accept the defense engagement on the condition of producing a genuinely independent and objective report, treating Engineer A's demonstrated impartiality and formal termination from the plaintiff engagement as sufficient to resolve any structural conflict.
option3: Condition acceptance of the defense retention on obtaining informed consent from the plaintiff or Attorney Z, treating the former client consent prerequisite as a curable procedural requirement rather than a structural bar, and proceed only if that consent is granted.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A treat his confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the plaintiff as having lapsed upon termination of the engagement — permitting him to participate adversely in the same proceeding — or must he recognize that the confidentiality obligation persists indefinitely and the loyalty floor persists for the duration of the active proceeding?
focus: Engineer A: Post-Termination Confidentiality Perpetuation and Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence
option1: Recognize that the confidentiality obligation persists indefinitely post-termination and that mental segregation of plaintiff confidential information is impossible, and therefore decline any adverse participation in the same matter regardless of stated intent to produce an independent report.
option2: Treat the formal termination of the plaintiff-side engagement as dissolving both the loyalty and confidentiality obligations, on the basis that Engineer A is not an absolute advocate for the plaintiff and that his findings were adverse to the plaintiff in any event, making the confidential information effectively non-prejudicial.
option3: Accept the defense engagement while implementing explicit procedural safeguards — such as limiting the scope of the defense report to technical matters not addressed in the plaintiff engagement and documenting the analytical firewall — treating mental segregation as achievable through professional discipline and scope limitation.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively disclose to Attorney Z that his findings are adverse to the plaintiff and discuss the ethical implications before allowing the engagement to be passively terminated — and separately, should he recognize and refuse Attorney X's retention as motivated by exploitation of his prior confidential access rather than his general expertise?
focus: Engineer A: Pre-Termination Disclosure Obligation and Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition
option1: Proactively disclose to Attorney Z that findings are adverse to the plaintiff and discuss ethical implications before termination; subsequently refuse Attorney X's retention upon recognizing that it is motivated by exploitation of prior confidential access rather than independent expertise.
option2: Allow the plaintiff-side engagement to dissolve without proactive disclosure of adverse findings, treating termination as a natural conclusion of the engagement, and accept Attorney X's retention on the basis that Engineer A's general forensic expertise — not insider access — is the operative basis for the new engagement.
option3: Fulfill the pre-termination disclosure obligation by surfacing adverse findings to Attorney Z, but treat the subsequent defense retention question as a separate and independent evaluation — accepting Attorney X's retention if Engineer A concludes his analysis will be genuinely independent of plaintiff confidential information, without seeking former client consent.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer A accept the defense-side retention by pledging to produce an independent engineering and safety analysis report, or decline the engagement because his prior confidential plaintiff-side engagement in the same active proceeding creates an irremediable structural conflict that no pledge of independence can cure?
focus: Engineer A Independent Report Pledge as Non-Cure of Switching-Sides Violation: Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and having conducted confidential analysis pointing to plaintiff fault, is subsequently approached by defense attorney Attorney X — who specifically sought him out because of his prior plaintiff-side engagement — and must decide whether to accept the defense retention by pledging to produce an independent report, or to decline the engagement on structural conflict grounds.
option1: Refuse the defense engagement entirely, informing Attorney X that the prior confidential plaintiff-side engagement in the same active proceeding creates an irremediable structural conflict that no pledge of independence or formal termination can cure, and that only former client consent — which has not been obtained — could permit participation.
option2: Accept the defense retention on the basis that Engineer A's demonstrated objectivity — evidenced by his prior refusal to produce a false plaintiff report — combined with a formal pledge to conduct an entirely independent analysis, is sufficient to cure any structural conflict arising from the prior engagement, particularly given that his findings were adverse to the plaintiff rather than favorable.
option3: Condition acceptance of the defense retention on obtaining explicit informed consent from the plaintiff or Attorney Z, disclosing to both the nature of Attorney X's approach and the scope of confidential information Engineer A retains, thereby satisfying the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition's consent-prerequisite mechanism before proceeding.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively disclose to Attorney Z — before allowing the engagement to be passively terminated — that his forensic findings point to plaintiff fault and discuss the ethical implications of that situation, or should he treat the adverse findings as confidential work product and allow the engagement to dissolve without surfacing the conflict?
focus: Pre-Termination Disclosure Obligation and Post-Termination Confidentiality Perpetuation: Before his services were terminated, Engineer A had reached findings adverse to the plaintiff but did not proactively disclose this to Attorney Z or discuss the ethical implications of the situation. This omission foreclosed the plaintiff's ability to exercise the consent-prerequisite mechanism and left the circumstances of termination in a form exploitable by opposing counsel, compounding the subsequent switching-sides violation.
option1: Before allowing the engagement to be terminated, affirmatively disclose to Attorney Z that the forensic analysis points to plaintiff fault, explain the ethical implications of that finding for the engagement and any future adverse participation, and give Attorney Z the opportunity to explicitly invoke confidentiality protections and address the consent-prerequisite question.
option2: Treat the adverse findings as confidential work product belonging to the engagement, decline to produce the requested favorable report, and allow Attorney Z to terminate the engagement without proactively surfacing the nature of the findings — on the basis that the findings were developed in confidence for the client and their disclosure is the client's prerogative, not the engineer's obligation.
option3: Provide Attorney Z with a written summary documenting the scope of confidential information reviewed, the nature of the analytical conclusions reached, and the ethical constraints that would apply to any future adverse use of that information — without characterizing the findings as definitively adverse — thereby creating a record that preserves the consent-prerequisite mechanism while respecting the confidential character of the work product.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Loss of continued fee income from this matter
foreseen unintended effects: Potential reputational consequences with plaintiff's bar
foreseen unintended effects: Termination of the engagement by Attorney Z
fulfills obligation text: Duty of honesty and integrity in professional practice
fulfills obligation text: Duty to avoid acting as a 'hired gun' biased toward the paying client
fulfills obligation text: Duty to hold public safety paramount by accurately identifying the at-fault party
fulfills obligation text: Duty to issue objective and truthful engineering reports (NSPE Code II.3.a.)
guided by principle text: Engineering objectivity supersedes client financial interest
guided by principle text: Engineers shall not misrepresent engineering facts or conditions
guided by principle text: Forensic engineers must 'call them as they see them'
guided by principle text: Public safety and truthful analysis are paramount professional obligations
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Uphold professional integrity by refusing to issue a report whose conclusions would misrepresent his honest engineering findings
requires capability text: Forensic engineering judgment
requires capability text: Objective safety analysis
requires capability text: Professional courage to deliver unfavorable findings to retaining client
temporal marker: After completion of review and analysis, prior to termination
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
comment: Following his review and analysis, Engineer A determines he cannot produce an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because his honest findings indicate the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report (Action 2) → Engineer A Services Terminated (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Attorney Z ends Engineer A's forensic consulting engagement after receiving the adverse findings
cause: Decline Favorable Plaintiff Report (Action 2)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A produced findings favorable to the plaintiff, termination would not have occurred and the subsequent conflict of interest chain would not have been initiated
effect: Engineer A Services Terminated (Event 3)
necessary factors: Attorney Z's decision that Engineer A's testimony would be unhelpful or harmful to the case
necessary factors: Attorney Z's receipt of findings adverse to the plaintiff's legal position
necessary factors: Engineer A's independent technical conclusion that fault lay with the plaintiff
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (for the finding); Attorney Z (for the termination decision)
sufficient factors: Adverse technical findings + Attorney Z's strategic litigation interest = termination of engagement as the predictable consequence
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Divided Loyalty Key Distinction BER 76-3 vs BER 74-2 Application
type: Dual-CapacityNon-DividedLoyaltyAdvisoryImpartialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board cited the BER 74-2 / BER 76-3 distinction to establish the divided loyalty principle applicable to Engineer A's switching-sides conduct in the present case.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 76-3 precedent application)
constraintclass: Dual-Capacity Non-Divided Loyalty Advisory Impartiality Constraint
constraintstatement: The key ethical distinction between permissible dual-capacity arrangements (BER Case 74-2) and impermissible conflicts (BER Case 76-3) is whether the engineer's loyalties are divided — dual-capacity arrangements are permissible only when the engineer's loyalties are not divided, and become impermissible when the engineer is placed on both sides of a divided issue.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 74-2; BER Case 76-3; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue
temporalscope: Throughout any dual-capacity engagement
textreferences: It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney
textreferences: the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.777613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer-Confidentiality-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerConfidentialityandLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.89
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating obligations to former client Attorney Z after services were terminated
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer A may use or disclose information obtained during his engagement with Attorney Z when subsequently working for Attorney X in the same case, and the duration of confidentiality obligations after termination
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.759761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer-Confidentiality-and-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard
type: EngineerConfidentialityandLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (through accumulated BER decisions)
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
textreferences: we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding
textreferences: while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Establishes that an engineer's duty of trust and loyalty to a former client persists beyond the termination of the professional relationship, at minimum for the duration of the legal proceeding in which the engineer was engaged
version: N/A — derived from NSPE Code and BER precedents
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.763255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition Deficit
type: AdverseRetentionMotivationRecognitionandEthicalResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to adequately recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining him was specifically tied to his prior access to plaintiff's confidential information and case strategy, and failed to respond ethically by declining the engagement — even if he was naive about Attorney X's awareness of the circumstances of his termination, this naivety did not excuse his acceptance of the retention
casecontext: Attorney X retained Engineer A knowing or having reason to know of his prior engagement by plaintiff's counsel, and Engineer A accepted this retention without adequately recognizing or responding to the exploitative motivation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of defense-side retention without adequately considering or responding to the evident motivation behind Attorney X's approach
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, we believe that this would not excuse his actions.
textreferences: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response
type: AdverseRetentionMotivationRecognitionandEthicalResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for seeking his retention was specifically tied to his prior access to plaintiff-side information and his known adverse conclusion, and failed to respond ethically by declining the engagement.
casecontext: Attorney X learned specifically of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination — including his adverse conclusion — before seeking retention, making the exploitation motivation transparent to an ethically attentive engineer.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's agreement to provide the defense report without recognizing or responding to the exploitation-motivated nature of Attorney X's retention approach demonstrates a failure of this capability.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.768839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A BER Multi-Precedent Forensic Side-Switching Conflict Synthesis Deficit
type: BERMulti-PrecedentForensicSide-SwitchingConflictSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Precedent Forensic Side-Switching Conflict Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to apply the capability to synthesize BER Cases 74-2, 76-3, 82-2, and 82-6 into a coherent framework prohibiting same-matter side-switching, leading him to accept retention by Attorney X in the same personal injury matter in which he had previously served Attorney Z and the plaintiff
casecontext: Engineer A accepted retention by defense attorney Attorney X in the same personal injury case in which he had previously been retained by plaintiff's attorney Attorney Z, despite the existence of multiple BER precedents establishing the impermissibility of such side-switching
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize that the consistent normative thread across all four BER precedents prohibited his acceptance of defense-side retention in the same proceeding
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another.
textreferences: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another.
textreferences: In BER Case 82-6, this Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the U.S. government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would be unethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.778390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition
type: ConfidentialInformationMentalSegregationImpossibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that having been exposed to plaintiff-side confidential information, documents, and case facts during his prior engagement, it was not realistically possible for him to mentally segregate that information when performing work for the defense — and that this impossibility rendered the defense engagement ethically impermissible regardless of his stated intention to provide an 'independent and separate' report.
casecontext: Engineer A had reviewed plaintiff-side materials, documents, and facts during his prior engagement, creating an informational exposure that could not be undone by termination of the engagement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's acceptance of the defense retention on the premise that he could provide an 'independent and separate' analysis demonstrates a failure to recognize the mental segregation impossibility that makes such independence unrealistic.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
textreferences: Attorney X...seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.769019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Defense-Side Retention Exploitation Recognition
type: Defense-SideRetentionExploitationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Defense-Side Retention Exploitation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that Attorney X's specific knowledge of the circumstances of his termination — including his adverse conclusion — meant that the defense retention was motivated by exploitation of his prior plaintiff-side access, rendering the engagement impermissible regardless of his intention to be independent.
casecontext: The defense attorney specifically sought Engineer A because of what he had learned and concluded during the plaintiff-side engagement — a paradigmatic exploitation scenario that Engineer A failed to identify.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Attorney X's explicit knowledge of 'the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case' before seeking retention makes the exploitation motivation transparent, yet Engineer A agreed to provide the report.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.769871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Defense-Side Retention Exploitation Recognition Deficit
type: Defense-SideRetentionExploitationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Defense-Side Retention Exploitation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for seeking his retention was specifically tied to his prior access to plaintiff-side confidential information, case strategy, and documents, and that accepting such retention would constitute exploitation of that prior access regardless of his belief that he could render an independent opinion
casecontext: Attorney X retained Engineer A knowing of his prior engagement by plaintiff's counsel, and Engineer A accepted without adequately recognizing that the retention was motivated by exploitation of his prior access
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of defense-side retention without recognizing the exploitative nature of the engagement, even though the sequence of events made the motivation evident
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, we believe that this would not excuse his actions.
textreferences: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.778096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Divided Loyalty vs Terminated Relationship Distinction Deficit
type: DividedLoyaltyvsTerminatedRelationshipEthicalEquivalenceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Divided Loyalty vs Terminated Relationship Ethical Equivalence Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the BER Case 74-2 principle — that loyalties are not divided when a prior relationship has been terminated — does not apply to forensic engagements where confidential information has already been transmitted, and therefore could not correctly distinguish between the permissible post-termination scenario in BER 74-2 and the impermissible side-switching scenario in his own case
casecontext: Engineer A may have reasoned that because he had terminated his relationship with Attorney Z, his loyalties were no longer divided — a reasoning pattern the BER explicitly rejected by distinguishing BER 74-2 from the present facts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Apparent reliance on the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z as resolving the conflict, without recognizing that the BER 74-2 principle does not extend to forensic contexts involving prior confidential information transmission
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
textreferences: However, we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
textreferences: In BER Case 76-3, this Board distinguished that case from earlier BER Case 74-2 in which the Board held that a part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering service to the same municipalities.
textreferences: It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.778998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Witness Objectivity Obligation in Adversarial Proceeding
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateExpertIndependenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout both engagements — with Attorney Z and subsequently with Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Court/adjudicating body
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: we note that it has sometimes been suggested that engineers who act as paid expert witnesses have an inherent conflict between their duty to tell the truth and their obligation to perform their services consistent with the best interests of the client
stateclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
subject: Engineer A's structural obligation to maintain objectivity as an expert witness rather than functioning as a paid advocate in the adversarial legal proceeding
terminatedby: Conclusion of Engineer A's involvement in the proceeding
textreferences: Engineer A did not act in the role as a 'hired gun,' seeking to testify in favor of the client who was paying his fee
textreferences: we make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them'
textreferences: we note that it has sometimes been suggested that engineers who act as paid expert witnesses have an inherent conflict between their duty to tell the truth and their obligation to perform their services consistent with the best interests of the client
triggeringevent: Engineer A's initial retention as expert witness/technical analyst in an adversarial legal proceeding
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.764244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Hired Gun Non-Participation Correct Initial Application
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A correctly applied the forensic expert objectivity standard during his initial engagement with Attorney Z, rendering an analysis report that was inconsistent with the plaintiff's legal interests rather than acting as a 'hired gun' — demonstrating that his ethical transgressions arose from his subsequent engagement with Attorney X, not from his initial forensic work
casecontext: Engineer A's initial forensic work for Attorney Z was conducted with objectivity and integrity; his ethical violations arose solely from his subsequent acceptance of defense-side retention in the same matter
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Development of an analysis report adverse to the plaintiff's legal interests during the initial engagement with Attorney Z, demonstrating independence from the retaining party's litigation interests
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client.
textreferences: Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client.
textreferences: Had Engineer A ceased his involvement in the case following the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, he would have been acting in a wholly ethical manner. His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.
textreferences: Under the facts, Engineer A did not act in the role as a 'hired gun,' seeking to testify in favor of the client who was paying his fee.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment
type: ForensicExpertSide-SwitchingConflictAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed — but failed to correctly apply — the capability to assess whether accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury case in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff) constituted an impermissible side-switching conflict of interest.
casecontext: Engineer A was a forensic engineer who had reviewed plaintiff-side materials, reached an adverse conclusion, been terminated, and then accepted retention by the opposing defense attorney in the same personal injury case.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's acceptance of the defense retention in the same matter, which the case analysis identifies as ethically impermissible, demonstrates a failure to correctly exercise this capability despite possessing the professional standing to do so.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.768071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Honesty and Integrity in Report Preparation
type: ForensicExpertWitnessHonestyandIntegrityinReportPreparationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Honesty and Integrity in Report Preparation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability for honesty and integrity in forensic report preparation during his plaintiff-side engagement by refusing to prepare a report that would misrepresent his actual findings, even when doing so cost him the engagement.
casecontext: Engineer A's initial engagement with Attorney Z resulted in an adverse finding that he refused to suppress or misrepresent, demonstrating strong integrity in the report preparation context.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's refusal to provide a report favorable to the plaintiff when his analysis indicated the plaintiff was at fault demonstrates correct application of honesty and integrity in report preparation.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.770501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to maintain forensic expert witness objectivity during his initial plaintiff-side engagement, correctly determining that the evidence did not support a report favorable to the plaintiff and refusing to shade his findings to serve the retaining attorney's litigation interests.
casecontext: During the plaintiff-side engagement, Engineer A reviewed the facts and concluded the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault — an adverse finding he refused to suppress even at the cost of his engagement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's determination that he could not provide a report favorable to the plaintiff because the results would have to suggest the plaintiff was at fault — and his acceptance of termination rather than compromising his findings — demonstrates correct application of objectivity maintenance.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.768470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment
type: FormerClientDutyofTrustandLoyaltyDurationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to correctly apply the capability to recognize that his duties of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality to Attorney Z and the plaintiff persisted after termination of the engagement, and that those duties barred him from accepting adverse retention in the same matter.
casecontext: After being terminated and paid in full by Attorney Z, Engineer A treated the engagement as fully concluded without recognizing the ongoing ethical obligations that survived termination.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's acceptance of the defense retention without recognizing the persistence of post-termination loyalty and confidentiality obligations to the plaintiff demonstrates a failure to correctly assess the duration of former client duties.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.768640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Recognition Deficit
type: ConfidentialInformationMentalSegregationImpossibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that his agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense did not cure the ethical conflict arising from his prior access to plaintiff's confidential information, because he could not realistically segregate that prior knowledge from his subsequent analysis
casecontext: Engineer A agreed to provide a separate and independent report for Attorney X, apparently believing this pledge resolved the ethical conflict, when in fact it did not
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the defense retention with an independence pledge, without recognizing that the pledge could not overcome the cognitive impossibility of starting from 'square one'
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
textreferences: Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case.
textreferences: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one' in performing his engineering and safety analysis report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.778556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Initial Plaintiff-Side Forensic Engagement
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateExpertIndependenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial retention by Attorney Z through termination of services
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case
stateclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
subject: Engineer A's retention by Attorney Z as forensic expert for plaintiff
terminatedby: Engineer A's services terminated after findings unfavorable to plaintiff
textreferences: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case
triggeringevent: Attorney Z retains Engineer A to provide engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of plaintiff
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Party Forensic Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure
type: Multi-PartyForensicPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Party Forensic Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to proactively disclose to Attorney X the full nature and extent of his prior relationship with Attorney Z and the plaintiff — including the confidential information accessed, the case knowledge gained, and the ethical constraints that prior relationship imposed — before accepting the defense retention.
casecontext: Attorney X had some knowledge of the termination circumstances, but Engineer A's obligation extended to full proactive disclosure of all material prior relationship facts before accepting the adverse retention.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The case facts indicate Attorney X learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination, but there is no indication Engineer A proactively disclosed the full scope of his prior engagement and its ethical implications to Attorney X before agreeing to provide the defense report.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A.
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.770023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Opposing Party Retention Motivated by Prior Access
type: OpposingPartyRetentionMotivatedbyPriorAccessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Attorney X's approach to Engineer A through Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
stateclass: Opposing Party Retention Motivated by Prior Access State
subject: Attorney X's retention of Engineer A transparently motivated by Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidential information and the expectation of a favorable report
terminatedby: Board determination that the engagement was impermissible
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, we believe that this would not excuse his actions.
textreferences: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
triggeringevent: Attorney X approaching Engineer A after learning of Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z, motivated by the belief that Engineer A would provide a favorable report
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.764817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Termination Discussion With Attorney Z Deficit
type: Pre-TerminationEthicalDilemmaDisclosuretoOriginalClientCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Termination Ethical Dilemma Disclosure to Original Client Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would lead to his subsequent retention by the opposing party, depriving Attorney Z and the plaintiff of the opportunity to address the conflict
casecontext: Engineer A's engagement with Attorney Z was terminated — apparently without Engineer A fully discussing the ethical implications with Attorney Z — after which Engineer A accepted retention by Attorney X
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Silent termination of the engagement with Attorney Z without the required full discussion of the ethical dilemma, followed by acceptance of defense-side retention
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
textreferences: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
textreferences: Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation -- Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss his ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would lead to his subsequent retention by the opposing party
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Termination Ethical Dilemma Disclosure to Original Client
type: Pre-TerminationEthicalDilemmaDisclosuretoOriginalClientCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Termination Ethical Dilemma Disclosure to Original Client Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to fully discuss his ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated, depriving Attorney Z and the plaintiff of the opportunity to address the conflict and protect their interests before the termination foreclosed those options.
casecontext: Engineer A reached an adverse conclusion and his services were terminated — the case raises the question of whether he fully discussed the ethical implications with Attorney Z before allowing termination to proceed.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The case facts indicate Engineer A's services were simply terminated and his fee paid in full, with no indication that Engineer A proactively disclosed the full nature of his dilemma and its implications to Attorney Z before the termination occurred.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.769697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Application Deficit
type: FormerClientDutyofTrustandLoyaltyDurationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to apply the principle that his duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff as his former client persisted for at least the full duration of the personal injury proceeding, leading him to accept adverse retention by defense counsel while the same proceeding remained active
casecontext: The personal injury case was still active when Engineer A accepted retention by Attorney X, meaning his loyalty obligations to the plaintiff as former client had not yet been extinguished
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of defense-side retention in the same ongoing personal injury proceeding, in violation of the proceeding-duration minimum loyalty standard
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time. However, we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time. However, we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
textreferences: while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.778846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Same-Matter Adversarial Consent Prerequisite Recognition
type: Same-MatterAdversarialConsentPrerequisiteRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Matter Adversarial Consent Prerequisite Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that accepting retention by Attorney X in the same personal injury case required the informed consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff before he could permissibly participate on the defense side.
casecontext: The same personal injury case in which Engineer A had been retained by the plaintiff's attorney was the subject of the defense retention — making this a paradigmatic same-matter scenario requiring consent.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's agreement to provide the defense report without obtaining or seeking consent from Attorney Z or the plaintiff demonstrates a failure to recognize the consent prerequisite applicable to same-matter adverse engagement.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.769169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Same-Matter Adversarial Consent Prerequisite Recognition Deficit
type: Same-MatterAdversarialConsentPrerequisiteRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Matter Adversarial Consent Prerequisite Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that accepting retention by Attorney X in the same personal injury matter required the informed consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff, and proceeded to accept the defense-side retention without obtaining or seeking such consent
casecontext: Engineer A accepted retention by Attorney X without obtaining the consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff, as required by Section III.4.b. of the NSPE Code of Ethics
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of defense-side retention in the same matter without obtaining the consent of the original client (Attorney Z and the plaintiff), in violation of Section III.4.b.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Citing the provisions of Section III.4.b., we found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor in its claim against the government for additional compensation.
textreferences: Citing the provisions of Section III.4.b., we found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor in its claim against the government for additional compensation.
textreferences: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.774521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Services Terminated
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duration_Of_Proceeding_Constraint
activates constraint: Post_Engagement_Confidentiality_Constraint
activates constraint: Residual_Conflict_Of_Interest_Constraint
causes state change: The active engagement ends but confidentiality obligations survive; Engineer A is now a free agent in the labor market but is ethically constrained from working for the opposing party in the same legal proceeding; the termination paradoxically makes Engineer A more attractive to Attorney X while simultaneously making that attraction ethically impermissible
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Decline_Retention_By_Adverse_Party_In_Same_Matter
creates obligation: Disclose_Prior_Engagement_If_Approached_By_Opposing_Party
creates obligation: Maintain_Confidentiality_Of_All_Case_Information_Indefinitely_During_Proceedings
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A communicates inability to support plaintiff's case
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: high
comment: Attorney Z ends Engineer A's forensic consulting engagement after receiving the adverse findings, and Engineer A is paid in full for work completed. This termination is an outcome of the irreconcilable mismatch between Engineer A's honest findings and Attorney Z's litigation needs.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Termination Non-Cure Self-Recognition Deficit
type: TerminationNon-CureofSame-MatterAdversarialConflictSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the mere cessation of his services for Attorney Z did not cure the ethical conflict that would arise from accepting retention by Attorney X in the same personal injury matter, because he had already received and processed confidential information from the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney during his prior engagement
casecontext: Engineer A's engagement with Attorney Z was terminated, and he subsequently accepted retention by Attorney X in the same matter, apparently treating the termination as resolving the conflict
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of defense-side retention after termination by plaintiff's counsel, without recognizing that termination did not eliminate the ethical conflict
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:45.976904+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
textreferences: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
textreferences: the fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z does not mitigate the fact that Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.778700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assessment
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseForensicEngagementPermissibilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to correctly apply the same-matter versus unrelated-matter distinction when assessing the permissibility of the defense retention — incorrectly treating the defense engagement as if it were a permissible independent engagement rather than recognizing it as same-matter side-switching.
casecontext: The defense retention concerned the same personal injury case — not an unrelated matter — making the unrelated-matter permissibility exception inapplicable, a distinction Engineer A failed to correctly draw.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's agreement to provide what he characterized as an 'independent and separate' report suggests he may have incorrectly applied the unrelated-matter permissibility rule to a same-matter scenario where it does not apply.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:16.163967+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.770181
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A hired by Attorney Z before Engineer A's review and analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report... Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
from entity text: Engineer A hired by Attorney Z
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's review and analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s review and analysis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's access to plaintiff's information during Engineer A's first analysis engagement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
from entity text: Engineer A's access to plaintiff's information
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's first analysis engagement
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s first analysis engagement
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to Attorney Z overlaps Engineer A's engagement with Attorney X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty... such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding
from entity text: Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to Attorney Z
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Engineer A's engagement with Attorney X
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Engineer A s engagement with Attorney X
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's engagement with Attorney Z before Engineer A's engagement with Attorney X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z... Engineer A's services are terminated... Thereafter, Attorney X... seeks to retain Engineer A... Engineer A agrees to provide the report
from entity text: Engineer A's engagement with Attorney Z
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's engagement with Attorney X
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s engagement with Attorney X
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's fee paid in full before Attorney X retains Engineer A
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full. Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances... and seeks to retain Engineer A
from entity text: Engineer A's fee paid in full
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Attorney X retains Engineer A
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Attorney X retains Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's review and analysis before Engineer A's services terminated by Attorney Z
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff... Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
from entity text: Engineer A's review and analysis
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's services terminated by Attorney Z
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s services terminated by Attorney Z
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's services terminated meets Engineer A's fee paid in full
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
from entity text: Engineer A's services terminated
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: Engineer A's fee paid in full
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: Engineer A s fee paid in full
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's subsequent involvement with Attorney X after Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X
from entity text: Engineer A's subsequent involvement with Attorney X
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: Engineer A s termination by Attorney Z
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z before Engineer A's ethical transgressions
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Had Engineer A ceased his involvement in the case following the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, he would have been acting in a wholly ethical manner. His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X
from entity text: Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's ethical transgressions
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s ethical transgressions
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.780211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Expert Witness Objectivity — Engineer A Forensic Independence Obligation in Both Engagements
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A correctly applied this constraint in the plaintiff-side engagement by refusing to provide a report favorable to the plaintiff when his analysis indicated plaintiff was at fault — demonstrating proper expert witness objectivity. The constraint also applies to the proposed defense engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain objectivity and independence as a forensic expert witness in both the plaintiff-side and (had it been permissible) the defense-side engagement — prohibited from functioning as a paid advocate for either party and required to render technically grounded opinions based on independent analysis regardless of which party retained him.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.3.a; NSPE Code Section II.4.b; BER Case No. 76-3; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
temporalscope: Throughout both the plaintiff-side engagement and the proposed defense engagement
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.771832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Fail to Recognize Irresolvable Conflict
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Confidential plaintiff information inevitably informs the purportedly independent analysis
foreseen unintended effects: Former client's confidential information is effectively weaponized against them
foreseen unintended effects: The integrity of the engineering report and the litigation process is compromised
guided by principle text: Engineers must recognize the limits of their ability to compartmentalize prior knowledge in conflict situations
guided by principle text: Professional integrity requires declining engagements where true independence cannot be achieved
guided by principle text: The label 'independent' does not make an analysis independent when the engineer has been immersed in one party's confidential information
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: negligent, failure to apply required professional judgment; possibly self-serving rationalization
intended outcome: Engineer A apparently intends to perform a genuinely new and independent analysis, or at minimum accepts the framing that the engagement is independent in order to justify accepting it
requires capability text: Conflict of interest analysis
requires capability text: Professional judgment to decline engagements where independence cannot be achieved
requires capability text: Recognition of how prior confidential access taints subsequent adverse engagements
requires capability text: Self-awareness regarding the limits of cognitive compartmentalization
temporal marker: At the point of agreeing to terms with Attorney X; framing of the new engagement as independent
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid conflicts of interest (NSPE Code II.4.b.)
violates obligation text: Duty to decline engagements where an irresolvable conflict exists
violates obligation text: Duty to protect confidential client information (NSPE Code III.4.b.)
violates obligation text: Duty to provide objective engineering analysis free from the taint of improperly retained confidential information
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A accepts the characterization of his new engagement as 'separate and independent' without recognizing or disclosing that his prior immersion in the plaintiff's confidential documents and information makes a truly independent analysis impossible and creates an irresolvable conflict of interest.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Fail to Recognize Irresolvable Conflict (Action 5) → Conflict Of Interest Crystallized (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A accepts the characterization of his new engagement as 'separate and independent' without critically evaluating whether the retained confidential knowledge from the prior engagement creates an irresolvable conflict
cause: Fail to Recognize Irresolvable Conflict (Action 5)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A independently and critically evaluated the conflict rather than accepting Attorney X's characterization, he would have recognized the irresolvable nature of the conflict and declined the engagement, preventing its crystallization
effect: Conflict Of Interest Crystallized (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer A's failure to apply independent professional judgment to the conflict question
necessary factors: Engineer A's uncritical acceptance of Attorney X's self-serving characterization of the engagement
necessary factors: The adversarial relationship between the new client and the former client in the same matter
necessary factors: The objective existence of retained confidential knowledge that cannot be 'unknowed'
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); Attorney X (contributing through mischaracterization)
sufficient factors: Retained confidential knowledge + same matter + adverse parties + Engineer A's failure to independently assess the conflict = sufficient to crystallize an irresolvable conflict regardless of how the engagement is characterized
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Forensic-Engineering-Report-Integrity-Standard
type: ForensicEngineeringReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (through accumulated BER decisions)
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: we make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'
textreferences: it has sometimes been suggested that engineers who act as paid expert witnesses have an inherent conflict between their duty to tell the truth and their obligation to perform their services consistent with the best interests of the client
textreferences: we make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Establishes the obligation of forensic engineers to 'call them as they see them' — to report findings objectively regardless of which party is paying their fee, and to avoid acting as a 'hired gun'
version: N/A — derived from NSPE Code Section II.3.a and BER precedents
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.763513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Forensic-Engineering-Report-Integrity-Standard-Instance
type: ForensicEngineeringReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case
textreferences: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case
usedby: Engineer A when determining he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to produce an accurate, objective, and complete forensic engineering and safety analysis report regardless of which party retained him, and his refusal to produce a report whose conclusions are dictated by client preference
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.759904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Forensic Expert Hired Gun Prohibition Engineer A Objectivity Affirmation
type: ForensicExpertPaidAdvocacyNon-EquivalencetoHiredGunProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board noted approvingly that Engineer A did not act as a hired gun in his initial plaintiff-side engagement, producing analysis inconsistent with the plaintiff's legal interests — affirming the objectivity standard while condemning his subsequent switching-sides conduct.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Forensic Expert Paid Advocacy Non-Equivalence to Hired Gun Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from functioning as a 'hired gun' for either retaining party — his duty was to 'call them as he saw them' by rendering objective technical analysis regardless of whether the findings aligned with the retaining client's legal interests, as demonstrated by his initial plaintiff-side engagement where he produced analysis inconsistent with the plaintiff's legal interests.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.3.a; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: we make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them'
temporalscope: Throughout all forensic engagements
textreferences: Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client
textreferences: Engineer A did not act in the role as a 'hired gun,' seeking to testify in favor of the client who was paying his fee
textreferences: Had Engineer A ceased his involvement in the case following the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, he would have been acting in a wholly ethical manner
textreferences: we make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them'
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.777292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Former Client Consent Prerequisite Engineer A Defense Retention Same Matter
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted defense retention without obtaining or seeking consent from plaintiff's Attorney Z, paralleling BER Case 82-6 where an engineer retained by the U.S. government could not represent the opposing contractor without government consent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from accepting retention by defense Attorney X in the same personal injury proceeding without first obtaining the consent of his former client (plaintiff and Attorney Z), as required by NSPE Code Section III.4.b — and no such consent was obtained or sought.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section III.4.b; BER Case No. 82-6; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor
temporalscope: Before accepting the defense engagement
textreferences: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z
textreferences: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard
textreferences: there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.777136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Former Client Consent Prerequisite — Engineer A Defense Engagement Without Plaintiff Consent
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had been retained by plaintiff's attorney, received confidential case information, and was then approached by defendant's attorney without any indication that plaintiff's attorney had consented to the cross-side engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from accepting retention by Attorney X (defendant) in the same personal injury proceeding without first obtaining the informed consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff — the former clients from whom he had received confidential information — and the absence of such consent operated as an absolute bar to participation regardless of the new client's framing of the engagement.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section III.4.b; BER Case No. 85-4; BER Case No. 82-6
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
temporalscope: At the time Attorney X sought Engineer A's retention and throughout any subsequent participation in the matter
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff.
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
textreferences: Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.770984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

II.4.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

III.4.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Independent Report Framing Non-Cure — Engineer A Defense Engagement Framed as Separate
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The defense attorney specifically framed the new engagement as 'independent and separate' — a framing that BER Case 85-4 explicitly found untenable as a cure for the switching-sides conflict.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: Attorney X's framing of the proposed defense engagement as 'an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report' did not cure, mitigate, or override the irresolvable conflict of interest created by Engineer A's prior confidential access to plaintiff's information — the independence of the analytical process being irrelevant to the ethical bar created by the prior same-matter confidential access.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4.b; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A agreed to provide the report for Attorney X
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.771683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Insider Knowledge Non-Deployment — Engineer A Plaintiff Case Knowledge in Defense Engagement
type: InsiderKnowledgeNon-DeploymentAgainstFormerClientConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's prior analytical work for the plaintiff gave him unique insider knowledge of the case's technical vulnerabilities and fault allocation — precisely the knowledge that made him attractive to the defense and that he was prohibited from deploying adversarially.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Insider Knowledge Non-Deployment Against Former Client Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from deploying the specialized insider knowledge obtained during his plaintiff-side engagement — including his analytical conclusions about fault allocation, the basis for his determination that plaintiff was at fault, and any confidential case strategy — against the plaintiff in the defense engagement, regardless of whether such deployment was intentional or inadvertent.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4; NSPE Code Section III.4; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
temporalscope: Throughout any defense engagement in the same personal injury matter
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.771521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Multi-BER-Precedent Conflict Assessment Integration Engineer A Switching Sides
type: BERPrecedentMulti-CaseConflictAssessmentIntegrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly reviewed and integrated BER Cases 74-2, 76-3, 82-2, and 82-6 before reaching its conclusion regarding Engineer A's conduct, establishing that the cumulative precedent weight governed the outcome.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: BER Precedent Multi-Case Conflict Assessment Integration Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board's ethical assessment of Engineer A's switching-sides conduct required integration of multiple BER precedents (Cases 74-2, 76-3, 82-2, 82-6) addressing analogous conflict-of-interest arrangements — the cumulative weight of these precedents established the operative ethical standard prohibiting Engineer A's acceptance of the defense engagement.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: BER Cases 74-2, 76-3, 82-2, 82-6, 85-4; NSPE Code Sections II.1.c, II.4.b, III.4.b
sourcetext: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another
temporalscope: At the time of the Board's ethical assessment
textreferences: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another
textreferences: before this Board examines those several Code provisions, we think it would be appropriate to examine earlier BER decisions relating to the issues present here
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.777789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Forensic-Engineer-Integrity
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault
textreferences: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault
usedby: Engineer A in determining he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to provide honest, objective engineering analysis regardless of which party retained him, and his duty not to issue reports whose conclusions are predetermined by client interest
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.759295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II-1-c
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.1.c — Client Confidentiality
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: In that case this Board noted Section II.1.c.
textreferences: In that case this Board noted Section II.1.c.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited in BER Case 82-2 regarding the obligation not to release client information without consent; applied by analogy to Engineer A's duty to protect information obtained from plaintiff's attorney
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.761810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II-3-a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.3.a — Objectivity in Professional Reports and Statements
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: with regard to the duty of the engineer to be objective in his professional reports and statements (II.3.a.)
textreferences: with regard to the duty of the engineer to be objective in his professional reports and statements (II.3.a.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited regarding the duty of engineers to be objective in professional reports and statements, particularly in the context of forensic engineers acting as expert witnesses
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.762117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II-4-b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.4.b — Independence and Impartiality
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case. (See also Section II.4.b.)
textreferences: Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case. (See also Section II.4.b.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Referenced in relation to Engineer A's claim of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant, which the Board found untenable given prior access to plaintiff's information
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.762255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III-4-b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.4.b — Conflict of Interest / Consent of Former Client
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Citing the provisions of Section III.4.b., we found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client
textreferences: Citing the provisions of Section III.4.b., we found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client
textreferences: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as the governing provision prohibiting Engineer A from representing the defendant without consent of the former client (plaintiff's attorney); establishes duty of loyalty to former client
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.761975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:08:08.354357+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: before this Board examines those several Code provisions
textreferences: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard
textreferences: before this Board examines those several Code provisions
textreferences: the Code of Ethics requires an engineer to endeavor to avoid a conflict of interest
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing conflict of interest, confidentiality, loyalty, and objectivity obligations of engineers acting as expert witnesses in adversarial proceedings
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.761675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Non-Deception — Engineer A Implicit Representation of Conflict-Free Status to Defense Attorney
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: By agreeing to provide an 'independent and separate' report without disclosing the irresolvable conflict created by his prior plaintiff-side engagement, Engineer A implicitly represented a conflict-free status that was ethically untenable.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from implicitly representing to Attorney X that he was free of conflicts and could ethically provide an independent defense report — when in fact his prior plaintiff-side engagement in the same matter created an irresolvable conflict that barred the engagement — as such implicit representation would constitute a deceptive omission material to Attorney X's and the court's understanding of the integrity of the expert engagement.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code non-deception provisions; NSPE Code Section II.4.b; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A agreed to provide the defense report
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.772645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Omit Disclosure to Former Client
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Conflict of interest proceeds without the safeguard of informed consent
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's obligations under Code Section III.4.b. are violated
foreseen unintended effects: Former client is deprived of the opportunity to object or protect confidential information
guided by principle text: Disclosure and consent are minimum requirements before an engineer switches sides in active litigation
guided by principle text: Engineers must proactively manage conflicts of interest, not merely avoid the most obvious violations
guided by principle text: The former client's ability to protect confidential information depends on the engineer's proactive disclosure
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: negligent or deliberate omission
intended outcome: No affirmative intended outcome, this is a failure to act on a required obligation; Engineer A proceeds to accept the new engagement without taking the required disclosure and consent step
requires capability text: Conflict of interest identification
requires capability text: Ethical judgment regarding switching sides in active litigation
requires capability text: Professional communication with former client
temporal marker: At the point of accepting retention by Attorney X; before commencing work for the defendant
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Duty of transparency and honesty with all parties affected by potential conflict
violates obligation text: Duty to fully disclose conflict of interest to former client before accepting adverse engagement (NSPE Code III.4.b.)
violates obligation text: Duty to obtain informed consent of former client before representing adverse interests in the same matter
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A fails to consult with or seek the informed consent of Attorney Z (former client) before agreeing to perform services for Attorney X on the opposing side of the same litigation.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Omit Disclosure to Former Client (Action 4) → Conflict Of Interest Crystallized (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A fails to consult with or seek the informed consent of Attorney Z (former client) before accepting the adverse engagement, crystallizing a direct and irresolvable conflict of interest
cause: Omit Disclosure to Former Client (Action 4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A disclosed the approach to Attorney Z and sought informed consent, the conflict might have been waived or Engineer A would have been clearly prohibited from proceeding, preventing the crystallization of the conflict
effect: Conflict Of Interest Crystallized (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer A's acceptance of the adverse retention without informed consent
necessary factors: Engineer A's failure to disclose the new engagement to the former client
necessary factors: Engineer A's possession of confidential technical and strategic knowledge
necessary factors: Engineer A's prior confidential relationship with Attorney Z
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Prior confidential relationship + adverse new retention + absence of disclosure or consent = irresolvable conflict of interest as a matter of professional ethics
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Opposing Retention Motivation Constructive Awareness Engineer A Attorney X
type: Post-TerminationAdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessNon-ExculpationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A may have claimed unawareness of Attorney X's strategic motivations; the Board found that the sequence of events created constructive awareness that could not serve as an exculpatory defense.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Termination Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Non-Exculpation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not invoke naivety about Attorney X's motivations as an exculpatory defense — the sequence of events (plaintiff-side retention, confidential access, termination, defense-side approach) created constructive awareness that Attorney X sought his retention precisely because of his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information and the expectation of a favorable report.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable
temporalscope: At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, we believe that this would not excuse his actions
textreferences: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.776986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Plaintiff Engagement Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Confidentiality_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Conflict_Of_Interest_Avoidance_Constraint
activates constraint: Loyalty_To_Client_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from independent professional to retained forensic consultant with fiduciary-like obligations to plaintiff's legal team; confidentiality clock begins
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Avoid_Adverse_Representation_In_Same_Matter
creates obligation: Disclose_Conflicts_If_They_Arise
creates obligation: Maintain_Confidentiality_Of_Case_Information
creates obligation: Provide_Honest_Independent_Analysis
emergency status: medium
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: At outset, when Attorney Z hires Engineer A
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: medium
comment: A formal forensic consulting relationship is created between Attorney Z and Engineer A upon hiring, establishing confidentiality obligations and a duty of loyalty to the plaintiff's legal team. This relationship is legally and ethically binding from the moment of retention.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
type: FormerClientAdversePartyStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship_to_engineer': 'Former client in same proceeding', 'confidential_information_shared': True, 'current_status': 'Adverse party in same legal proceeding'}
caseinvolvement: The plaintiff in the underlying litigation was the original client whose confidential information, documents, and cooperative access were provided to Engineer A during the first engagement. After Engineer A's termination and subsequent retention by the defense, the plaintiff became the adverse party whose confidential information Engineer A could not ethically disregard or compartmentalize.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:07:49.365202+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:07:49.365202+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_engineer', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
relationships: {'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Forensic Retaining Attorney'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Former Client Adverse Party Stakeholder
sourcetext: information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
textreferences: he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
textreferences: information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.761524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Post-Termination Confidentiality Perpetuation — Engineer A Holding Plaintiff Confidential Information
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A held confidential information from his plaintiff-side engagement including his analytical conclusions, the basis for his determination that plaintiff was at fault, and case strategy — all of which were directly relevant to and potentially deployable in the defense engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Employment NSPE Code III.4 Adversarial Promotional Confidentiality Tripartite Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's duty to protect and refrain from adversarially deploying the confidential information, documents, case strategy, and analytical conclusions obtained during his engagement with Attorney Z persisted beyond the formal termination of that engagement and the payment of his fee — prohibiting him from using or allowing the use of that confidential information in the defense engagement with Attorney X.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4; NSPE Code Section II.1.c; BER Case No. 82-2; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
temporalscope: From termination of the plaintiff-side engagement through the conclusion of the personal injury litigation
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.771312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Pre-Acceptance Conflict Screening Engineer A Defense Engagement Failure
type: ExpertWitnessEngagementConflictAssessmentPre-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted the defense engagement without conducting adequate pre-acceptance conflict screening that would have identified the same-matter prior engagement as an absolute bar to acceptance.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Expert Witness Engagement Conflict Assessment Pre-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Before accepting retention by defense Attorney X, Engineer A was required to conduct a thorough conflict of interest assessment identifying his prior retention by plaintiff's Attorney Z in the same proceeding, his cooperative access to the plaintiff's confidential information, and the irresolvable conflict created by that prior access — and was prohibited from accepting the defense engagement without completing this assessment.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
sourcetext: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events
temporalscope: Before accepting the defense engagement
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events
textreferences: it should have been quite clear to him that a conflict of interest was inevitable
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.778246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Pre-Acceptance Conflict Screening — Engineer A Defense Retention Without Conflict Assessment
type: ExpertWitnessEngagementConflictAssessmentPre-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A agreed to provide the defense report without apparent conflict screening — the facts indicate he accepted the engagement without recognizing or addressing the irresolvable conflict created by his prior plaintiff-side engagement in the same matter.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Expert Witness Engagement Conflict Assessment Pre-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to conduct a conflict assessment before accepting retention by Attorney X — specifically to determine whether his prior engagement by Attorney Z in the same matter, and the confidential information he had received during that engagement, created an irresolvable conflict of interest that barred acceptance of the defense engagement.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
temporalscope: At the time Attorney X sought to retain Engineer A and before Engineer A agreed to provide the report
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.771984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Pre-Engagement Conflict Interrogation BER Case 76-3 County Consultant
type: ConflictAvoidancePre-EngagementInterrogationDutyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 76-3 precedent cited in the present case: engineer serving as paid county consultant accepted engagement as expert witness for private development company before the county board without conducting adequate pre-engagement conflict screening.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 76-3)
constraintclass: Conflict Avoidance Pre-Engagement Interrogation Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: In BER Case 76-3, Engineer A was required to conduct sufficient pre-engagement inquiry into the development company's plans before accepting retention — a little interrogation would have revealed the inevitable conflict of interest with his existing county consultant role, and the failure to conduct this inquiry constituted an independent ethical deficiency.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: BER Case 76-3; NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions
sourcetext: it should have been quite clear to him that a conflict of interest was inevitable
temporalscope: Before accepting the development company engagement
textreferences: When Engineer A was approached, while still on retainer to the county, by the development company
textreferences: it seemed in that case that a little interrogation of the development company concerning its plans would have revealed the conflict of interest
textreferences: it should have been quite clear to him that a conflict of interest was inevitable
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.777444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Floor Engineer A Same Personal Injury Case
type: Proceeding-DurationFormerClientLoyaltyMinimumFloorConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z), gained access to confidential information, was terminated, and then accepted retention by defendant's attorney (Attorney X) in the same active proceeding.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Minimum Floor Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff and Attorney Z persisted at minimum for the full duration of the personal injury proceeding, absolutely prohibiting him from accepting retention by the defense while the same proceeding remained active, regardless of the formal termination of his engagement with Attorney Z.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section III.4.b
sourcetext: we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding
temporalscope: For the full duration of the personal injury legal proceeding
textreferences: we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding
textreferences: while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.776363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.944851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to agree to provide a separate engineering and safety analysis report?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A have an obligation to proactively disclose to Attorney Z, before termination, that his findings pointed to plaintiff fault, and to discuss the ethical implications of that situation rather than simply allowing the engagement to be terminated?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the fact that Attorney X specifically sought out Engineer A because of his prior plaintiff-side engagement — and the circumstances of his termination — itself constitute an ethically problematic exploitation of a structural conflict, and does Engineer A bear responsibility for recognizing and refusing that motivated retention?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Is the confidential information Engineer A obtained during the plaintiff-side engagement truly segregable from any independent analysis he might conduct for the defense, and if mental segregation is impossible, does that alone bar the defense engagement regardless of Engineer A's stated intent to produce an independent report?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Would Engineer A's acceptance of the defense engagement have been ethical if the personal injury case had fully concluded and no active litigation remained, or does the switching-sides prohibition extend indefinitely to any matter in which Engineer A previously held a confidential plaintiff-side engagement?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity principle — which Engineer A correctly applied by refusing to produce a favorable but inaccurate plaintiff report — conflict with the Switching Sides Prohibition, given that Engineer A's objectivity is precisely what makes him attractive to the defense and yet that same objectivity cannot cure the structural conflict created by accepting the defense engagement?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy principle — which holds that Engineer A's duty to protect plaintiff confidential information persists indefinitely post-termination — conflict with the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary acknowledgment that Engineer A is not bound by absolute loyalty to the plaintiff, and how should these two principles be reconciled when Engineer A is asked to produce a genuinely independent analysis?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Disclosure Insufficiency for Structural Conflict principle — which holds that Engineer A's pledge to produce an independent report cannot cure the underlying conflict — tension with the Objectivity Principle Affirmed in Engineer A's forensic role, which suggests that a genuinely objective expert should be capable of producing an unbiased analysis regardless of prior engagement history?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Resignation Non-Cure of Structural Adversarial Conflict principle — which holds that Engineer A's termination does not eliminate the ethical bar to defense engagement — conflict with the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition's consent-prerequisite mechanism, which implies that the prohibition could theoretically be lifted by plaintiff consent, thereby suggesting the conflict is not truly absolute but rather consent-dependent?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a categorical duty of loyalty to the plaintiff by accepting retention from the defense in the same proceeding, regardless of whether the resulting report would be technically objective?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.947845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the harm to the integrity of the adversarial legal proceeding and to the plaintiff's position outweigh any benefit derived from Engineer A providing an ostensibly independent and objective defense-side report?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.283539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and honesty expected of a forensic engineer when he accepted the defense retention knowing that Attorney X's motivation was precisely his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential case analysis?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.283640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A breach a duty of confidentiality to the plaintiff that persists indefinitely beyond termination of the engagement, such that any post-termination adverse participation in the same matter constitutes a per se ethical violation irrespective of Engineer A's intent to keep the report independent?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.283705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's acceptance of the defense retention have been ethically permissible if the case had been fully resolved and closed before Attorney X approached him, rather than being an active ongoing proceeding?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.283875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: Would the ethical outcome have differed if Engineer A had proactively disclosed his prior plaintiff-side engagement to Attorney X before agreeing to the defense retention, and Attorney X had proceeded with full knowledge of that conflict?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.283934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: What if Engineer A had raised the ethical conflict with Attorney Z before his services were terminated — specifically disclosing that his findings were adverse to the plaintiff and discussing the implications — would that pre-termination disclosure have altered his subsequent ethical obligations regarding the defense retention?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.283989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Would Engineer A's conduct have been ethical if Attorney X had sought to retain him for a completely unrelated personal injury case involving different parties and facts, rather than the same proceeding in which he had reviewed confidential plaintiff information?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.284048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.945355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:04.285859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Retention Motivation Awareness Non-Exculpation — Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
type: Post-TerminationAdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessNon-ExculpationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X specifically learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's unwillingness to support the plaintiff's case before seeking his retention — making the motivational structure of the new retention transparent and creating constructive awareness of the conflict.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Termination Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Non-Exculpation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not invoke naivety about Attorney X's motivations as an exculpatory defense for accepting the defense retention — the sequence of events (plaintiff-side retention, confidential access, termination, and opposing-party retention specifically motivated by knowledge of Engineer A's prior access and conclusions) created constructive awareness that the new retention was sought precisely because of Engineer A's prior confidential access to plaintiff's information.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A agreed to provide the report for Attorney X
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.771137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Sequential-Party-Representation-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: SequentialPartyRepresentationEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:57.803316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report
usedby: Engineer A when deciding whether to accept the engagement from Attorney X
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer A may ethically accept retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) after having been retained and terminated by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) in the same case
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.759473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Switching Sides Bar — Engineer A Same Personal Injury Case Defense Retention
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by plaintiff's attorney, conducted confidential review, determined he could not support plaintiff's case, was terminated with fee paid, and was then approached by defendant's attorney who had learned of the circumstances — creating a paradigm switching-sides scenario in the same active litigation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from accepting retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) in the same personal injury case in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) and had gained access to confidential information, documents, and case analysis — the prohibition applying regardless of the termination of the original engagement, the payment of his fee, or the framing of the new engagement as 'independent and separate.'
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections II.4.b and III.4.b; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
temporalscope: From the moment Attorney X sought to retain Engineer A through the conclusion of the personal injury litigation
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.770821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Termination Circumstances Become Known
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Appearance_Of_Conflict_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Exploitation_Of_Confidential_Information_Constraint
causes state change: Attorney X now possesses information that makes Engineer A appear attractive as a defendant expert, precisely because of knowledge that makes Engineer A ethically unavailable; the stage is set for the core ethical violation; the information asymmetry between what Attorney X knows and what ethical obligations require creates dangerous conditions
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Decline_If_Approached_By_Attorney_X
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Disclose_Prior_Engagement_To_Any_Prospective_Retaining_Party_In_Same_Matter
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Subsequently, after Engineer A's termination, before Attorney X's retention
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: Attorney X (defendant's counsel) learns of the circumstances surrounding Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z, including the fact that Engineer A's findings were adverse to the plaintiff and that services were ended as a result. This information disclosure is an exogenous event that creates the conditions for the subsequent ethically problematic retention.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Termination Circumstances Become Known (Event 4) → Accept Defendant Attorney Retention (Action 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Attorney X (defendant's counsel) learns of the circumstances surrounding Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z
cause: Termination Circumstances Become Known (Event 4)
counterfactual: Had the termination circumstances remained unknown to Attorney X, or had Engineer A declined the approach, the adverse retention would not have occurred
effect: Accept Defendant Attorney Retention (Action 3)
necessary factors: Attorney X's inference that Engineer A possessed confidential technical knowledge about the plaintiff's case
necessary factors: Attorney X's knowledge that Engineer A had been terminated after producing adverse findings for the plaintiff
necessary factors: Engineer A's willingness to accept the new retention despite the prior relationship
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); Attorney X (contributing)
sufficient factors: Attorney X's knowledge of termination + Engineer A's availability + Engineer A's failure to recognize the conflict = sufficient conditions for the adverse retention to occur
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.779681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Termination Non-Cure Same-Matter Conflict Engineer A Defense Retention
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A argued that cessation of services for Attorney Z resolved the conflict; the Board rejected this argument, finding that prior confidential access creates an irresolvable conflict regardless of termination.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: The formal termination of Engineer A's engagement with plaintiff's Attorney Z did not cure, mitigate, or override the irresolvable conflict of interest created by his prior cooperative access to the plaintiff's confidential information, documents, and case materials — absolutely prohibiting him from accepting retention by defense Attorney X in the same personal injury proceeding.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b; NSPE Code Section III.4.b
sourcetext: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
temporalscope: From the moment of termination of the plaintiff-side engagement through the duration of the proceeding
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind
textreferences: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.776664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Unrelated Matter Permissibility Boundary — Engineer A Same-Matter Distinguishability
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseForensicEngagementPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The defense engagement was in the identical personal injury case, not a different matter — distinguishing this situation from cases where an engineer may serve opposing parties in unrelated matters. The same-matter identity is the critical distinguishing factor that activates the absolute bar.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: The permissibility exception for adverse forensic engagements in unrelated matters did not apply to Engineer A's situation — because the defense engagement was in the same personal injury case (not an unrelated matter) and involved the same subject matter and confidential information from the prior plaintiff-side engagement — making the unrelated-matter exception inapplicable and the switching-sides prohibition fully operative.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:14:45.760168+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4; BER Case No. 98-4; BER Case No. 85-4
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A agreed to provide the defense report
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.772806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777919+00:00
value: Objectivity requires not just the absence of conscious bias but the structural conditions for independent analysis — conditions that cannot exist when the engineer has already analyzed the same matter for the opposing party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778517+00:00
value: The client-transmitted confidentiality obligation survives termination of the engagement and full payment of fees — the fact that Engineer A was paid does not extinguish the confidentiality obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777488+00:00
value: The irreconcilability of divided loyalty prevailed; the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were no longer divided because he had terminated the first engagement was rejected because the ethical obligation to the former client persisted

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779548+00:00
value: The irreconcilability of divided loyalty prevailed; the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were no longer divided because he had terminated the first engagement was rejected because the ethical obligation to the former client persisted

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778437+00:00
value: The irreconcilability of divided loyalty prevailed; the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were no longer divided because he had terminated the first engagement was rejected because the ethical obligation to the former client persisted

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.780106+00:00
value: Non-advocate objectivity properly overrode client loyalty in the initial engagement; however, the subsequent defense engagement raises the question of whether 'independent and separate' analysis is achievable given prior exposure to plaintiff's confidential information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.780054+00:00
value: True objectivity in the defense engagement is structurally impossible because Engineer A has already formed analytical conclusions about the case during the plaintiff-side engagement — his subsequent 'independent' analysis for the defense cannot be genuinely independent of his prior exposure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779821+00:00
value: Non-advocate objectivity properly overrode client loyalty in the initial engagement; however, the subsequent defense engagement raises the question of whether 'independent and separate' analysis is achievable given prior exposure to plaintiff's confidential information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778648+00:00
value: Objectivity is affirmed as the governing standard for forensic engineers; the fact that Engineer A's honest analysis was adverse to his retaining client was praised, not criticized

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.781216+00:00
value: Objectivity requires not just the absence of conscious bias but the structural conditions for independent analysis — conditions that cannot exist when the engineer has already analyzed the same matter for the opposing party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.780372+00:00
value: The irreconcilability of divided loyalty prevailed; the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were no longer divided because he had terminated the first engagement was rejected because the ethical obligation to the former client persisted

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.780156+00:00
value: Confidentiality obligation prevailed; Engineer A could not credibly provide independent analysis for the defense because doing so would necessarily implicate his prior confidential access to the plaintiff's information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779616+00:00
value: Objectivity requires not just the absence of conscious bias but the structural conditions for independent analysis — conditions that cannot exist when the engineer has already analyzed the same matter for the opposing party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779873+00:00
value: The non-advocate principle requires that Engineer A's analysis be genuinely independent — but the circumstances of the defense retention (sought specifically because of prior adverse findings about the plaintiff) make genuine independence structurally impossible

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777603+00:00
value: The prohibition on adverse participation in the same proceeding where specialized knowledge was gained prevailed; the fact that Engineer A was no longer formally retained by plaintiff's attorney did not dissolve the obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779342+00:00
value: The prohibition on adverse participation in the same proceeding where specialized knowledge was gained prevailed; the fact that Engineer A was no longer formally retained by plaintiff's attorney did not dissolve the obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778573+00:00
value: The prohibition on adverse participation in the same proceeding where specialized knowledge was gained prevailed; the fact that Engineer A was no longer formally retained by plaintiff's attorney did not dissolve the obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777194+00:00
value: Confidentiality obligation prevailed; Engineer A could not credibly provide independent analysis for the defense because doing so would necessarily implicate his prior confidential access to the plaintiff's information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779157+00:00
value: Confidentiality obligation survives termination and full payment of fees — the plaintiff's attorney's transmission of confidential information to Engineer A created an obligation that cannot be extinguished by the mechanics of engagement termination

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778100+00:00
value: The indelibility of prior confidential access prevailed over the formal act of termination; the Board held that Engineer A's cessation of services for Attorney Z was not an adequate solution

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.781103+00:00
value: The prohibition on adverse participation in the same proceeding where specialized knowledge was gained prevailed; the fact that Engineer A was no longer formally retained by plaintiff's attorney did not dissolve the obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.780223+00:00
value: The structural nature of the conflict prevailed over Engineer A's assurance of independence; the Board found he would not be capable of providing a truly separate and independent report

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778737+00:00
value: The structural nature of the conflict prevailed over Engineer A's assurance of independence; the Board found he would not be capable of providing a truly separate and independent report

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778883+00:00
value: The non-advocate principle requires that Engineer A's analysis be genuinely independent — but the circumstances of the defense retention (sought specifically because of prior adverse findings about the plaintiff) make genuine independence structurally impossible

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779996+00:00
value: Engineer A's agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense did not cure, mitigate, or override the irresolvable conflict of interest created by his prior confidential access to the plaintiff's information — the independence of the analytical process being irrelevant to the ethical bar created by the prior confidential access.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777375+00:00
value: The proceeding-duration floor prevailed over the argument that termination of the formal engagement dissolved all loyalty obligations; the Board rejected the 'clean slate' argument while declining to specify how long beyond the proceeding the obligation might extend

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779494+00:00
value: Loyalty to the former client prevailed over Engineer A's autonomy to accept new engagements in the same proceeding

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778225+00:00
value: Loyalty to the former client prevailed over Engineer A's autonomy to accept new engagements in the same proceeding

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779686+00:00
value: Engineer A was required, at a bare minimum, to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would enable his subsequent retention by the opposing defense attorney in the same proceeding.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777013+00:00
value: Non-advocate objectivity properly overrode client loyalty in the initial engagement; however, the subsequent defense engagement raises the question of whether 'independent and separate' analysis is achievable given prior exposure to plaintiff's confidential information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777273+00:00
value: The structural nature of the conflict prevailed over Engineer A's assurance of independence; the Board found he would not be capable of providing a truly separate and independent report

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779053+00:00
value: The switching-sides prohibition prevailed over Engineer A's autonomy to accept new engagements because the prior confidential access created an irreconcilable structural conflict that termination of the formal relationship could not cure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778007+00:00
value: The structural nature of the conflict prevailed over Engineer A's assurance of independence; the Board found he would not be capable of providing a truly separate and independent report

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.780303+00:00
value: The proceeding-duration floor prevailed over the argument that termination of the formal engagement dissolved all loyalty obligations; the Board rejected the 'clean slate' argument while declining to specify how long beyond the proceeding the obligation might extend

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.781163+00:00
value: The switching-sides prohibition overrides any argument that termination of the engagement freed Engineer A from further obligations — the confidential information acquired during the plaintiff-side engagement cannot be unlearned and contaminates any purportedly 'independent' analysis for the defense

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778795+00:00
value: The indelibility of prior confidential access prevailed over the formal act of termination; the Board held that Engineer A's cessation of services for Attorney Z was not an adequate solution

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778978+00:00
value: The proceeding-duration floor prevailed over the argument that termination of the formal engagement dissolved all loyalty obligations; the Board rejected the 'clean slate' argument while declining to specify how long beyond the proceeding the obligation might extend

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779926+00:00
value: The indelibility of prior confidential access prevailed over the formal act of termination; the Board held that Engineer A's cessation of services for Attorney Z was not an adequate solution

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779441+00:00
value: The prohibition is fully operative because the adverse engagement is in the same matter (not an unrelated matter), and no consent of all interested parties was obtained — the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition's exception for unrelated matters does not apply here

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778366+00:00
value: The prohibition is fully operative because the adverse engagement is in the same matter (not an unrelated matter), and no consent of all interested parties was obtained — the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition's exception for unrelated matters does not apply here

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779275+00:00
value: Confidentiality obligation survives termination and full payment of fees — the plaintiff's attorney's transmission of confidential information to Engineer A created an obligation that cannot be extinguished by the mechanics of engagement termination

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779757+00:00
value: Engineer A was required, at a bare minimum, to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would enable his subsequent retention by the opposing defense attorney in the same proceeding.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.777813+00:00
value: The switching-sides prohibition overrides any argument that termination of the engagement freed Engineer A from further obligations — the confidential information acquired during the plaintiff-side engagement cannot be unlearned and contaminates any purportedly 'independent' analysis for the defense

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.779105+00:00
value: The switching-sides prohibition overrides any argument that termination of the engagement freed Engineer A from further obligations — the confidential information acquired during the plaintiff-side engagement cannot be unlearned and contaminates any purportedly 'independent' analysis for the defense

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:08:25.778307+00:00
value: The switching-sides prohibition prevailed over Engineer A's autonomy to accept new engagements because the prior confidential access created an irreconcilable structural conflict that termination of the formal relationship could not cure

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board acknowledged the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney — recognizing the principle that engineers are not bound by perpetual absolute loyalty to

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's acceptance of the defense-side engagement cannot be justified by the principle that engineers are not perpetually bound to former clients, because that principle permits adverse engagements only in unrelated matters — the defen

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board acknowledged that it could not specify precisely how long Engineer A's post-relationship confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the plaintiff would persist, establishing the indeterminate nature of post-relationship confidenti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that Engineer A's role as a forensic expert was not to advocate for the retaining attorney's client but to provide objective technical analysis — praising his initial conduct of producing an adverse report and condemning

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that Engineer A's initial conduct — producing an analysis report inconsistent with the plaintiff's legal interests because that was his honest technical conclusion — exemplified proper forensic objectivity, and that engin

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The confidential case information, documents, and analytical access provided by Attorney Z to Engineer A during the plaintiff-side forensic engagement created a confidentiality obligation that survived termination of the engagement and bars

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The confidential information, documents, and cooperative access provided by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney to Engineer A during his initial retention created a confidentiality obligation that persisted after the formal engagement en

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having gained specialized forensic knowledge about the personal injury case on behalf of the plaintiff's attorney (former client), accepted an engagement adverse to the plaintiff in the same proceeding without the consent of all

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A retained a duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff as a former client that survived the formal termination of his engagement — this duty of loyalty, alongside confidentiality, barred him from accepting the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and gained access to plaintiff's confidential documents and information, accepted retention by the defense attorney in the same personal injury litigation after termination of the pla

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon completing his forensic review and analysis, determined that he could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff because the technical findings implicated the plaintiff rather than the defendant — demonstrating proper

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board established that Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff — as his former client — persisted for at least the full duration of the personal injury litigation, even though his formal engagement had been terminated, c

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's termination of his engagement with plaintiff's attorney was held insufficient to cure the ethical conflict created by his prior access to plaintiff's confidential information — the Board rejected the argument that formal diseng

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and having conducted forensic review and analysis in the same personal injury case, accepted retention by the defendant's attorney in the same proceeding after his initial engagement

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense was held insufficient to cure the structural conflict created by his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential informat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the divided loyalty analysis from BER Cases 76-3 and 74-2 to distinguish permissible dual engagement (where loyalties are not divided) from impermissible engagement (where the engineer is effectively on both sides of a div

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having gained specialized knowledge of the plaintiff's case through his prior retention, was prohibited from participating as a forensic expert for the defense in the same proceeding without the consent of the plaintiff — the fo

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A demonstrated objectivity by refusing to produce a plaintiff-favorable report when technical findings did not support it; however, accepting the defense engagement after being specifically recruited because of those adverse findin

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Attorney Z transmitted case documents, access to the plaintiff, and strategic case information to Engineer A in the course of the forensic engagement — creating a strong confidentiality obligation that survived the termination of the engage

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A correctly applied the non-advocate principle by refusing to produce a plaintiff-favorable report when technical findings did not support it; however, his subsequent acceptance of the defense engagement — after the defense attorne

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for seeking his retention was specifically tied to his prior access to plaintiff-side confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a defense-favorable repor

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining him was his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a favorable defense report, and to decline the retent

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts rather than producing a report favorable to the retaining party; he correctly fulfilled this obligation by r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that Engineer A's role as a forensic expert was not to advocate for the retaining attorney's client but to provide objective technical analysis — praising his initial conduct of producing an adverse report and condemning

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense attorney, so that Attorney Z had the opportunity to address the conflict, provide consent, or otherwise resolve the situ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the confidential information, documents, and case knowledge transmitted to him by Attorney Z and the plaintiff during the prior engagement, and to refrain from using or leveraging that informa

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Attorney Z transmitted case documents, access to the plaintiff, and strategic case information to Engineer A in the course of the forensic engagement — creating a strong confidentiality obligation that survived the termination of the engage

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss his ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would enable him to be retained by the opposing defense party in the same matter.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff before participating in or representing the adverse (defense) interest in the same personal injury proceeding in which he had gained specialized forensi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Attorney Z transmitted case documents, access to the plaintiff, and strategic case information to Engineer A in the course of the forensic engagement — creating a strong confidentiality obligation that survived the termination of the engage

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to protect the confidential information, documents, and case materials transmitted to him by Attorney Z and the plaintiff during the forensic engagement, recognizing that the voluntary and cooperative transmission o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to avoid placing himself in a position of divided loyalty by accepting retention from both sides of the same adversarial proceeding, recognizing that his prior plaintiff-side engagement and his subsequent defense-si

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of the plaintiff and Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense in the same personal injury matter, given that he had gained specialized forensic knowledge of the plaintiff's

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the plaintiff's confidential information, documents, and facts obtained during his prior engagement even after the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, and to refrain from using th

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board acknowledged that it could not specify precisely how long Engineer A's post-relationship confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the plaintiff would persist, establishing the indeterminate nature of post-relationship confidenti

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain a duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff as his former client for at least the full duration of the personal injury proceeding, precluding him from accepting adverse retention in the same matter duri

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A retained a duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff as a former client that survived the formal termination of his engagement — this duty of loyalty, alongside confidentiality, barred him from accepting the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury case in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to confidential case documents, t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to perform his forensic engineering services with honesty and integrity, refraining from selectively using data to defend the retaining client, and was required to report his findings truthfully even when those find

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury matter in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to the plaintiff's confidential

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts in his forensic engagement, functioning as an objective expert rather than a partisan advocate for the plain

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A demonstrated objectivity by refusing to produce a plaintiff-favorable report when technical findings did not support it; however, accepting the defense engagement after being specifically recruited because of those adverse findin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense was held insufficient to cure the structural conflict created by his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential informat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the mere termination of his engagement with Attorney Z did not cure the ethical conflict that would arise from accepting defense retention in the same matter, and to decline the defense engagement

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for seeking his retention was specifically tied to his prior access to plaintiff-side confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a defense-favorable repor

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining him was his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a favorable defense report, and to decline the retent

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the plaintiff's confidential information, documents, and facts obtained during his prior engagement even after the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, and to refrain from using th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain a duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff as his former client for at least the full duration of the personal injury proceeding, precluding him from accepting adverse retention in the same matter duri

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury case in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to confidential case documents, t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to perform his forensic engineering services with honesty and integrity, refraining from selectively using data to defend the retaining client, and was required to report his findings truthfully even when those find

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury matter in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to the plaintiff's confidential

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts in his forensic engagement, functioning as an objective expert rather than a partisan advocate for the plain

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense did not cure the ethical conflict created by his prior access to the plaintiff's confide

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the mere termination of his engagement with Attorney Z did not cure the ethical conflict that would arise from accepting defense retention in the same matter, and to decline the defense engagement

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts rather than producing a report favorable to the retaining party; he correctly fulfilled this obligation by r

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense attorney, so that Attorney Z had the opportunity to address the conflict, provide consent, or otherwise resolve the situ

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the confidential information, documents, and case knowledge transmitted to him by Attorney Z and the plaintiff during the prior engagement, and to refrain from using or leveraging that informa

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss his ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would enable him to be retained by the opposing defense party in the same matter.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff before participating in or representing the adverse (defense) interest in the same personal injury proceeding in which he had gained specialized forensi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to protect the confidential information, documents, and case materials transmitted to him by Attorney Z and the plaintiff during the forensic engagement, recognizing that the voluntary and cooperative transmission o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to avoid placing himself in a position of divided loyalty by accepting retention from both sides of the same adversarial proceeding, recognizing that his prior plaintiff-side engagement and his subsequent defense-si

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of the plaintiff and Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense in the same personal injury matter, given that he had gained specialized forensic knowledge of the plaintiff's

Attorney X Defense Retaining Attorney
type: DefenseAttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer Non-Advocate Status Demonstrated And Then Undermined By Engineer A
attributes: {'party_represented': 'Defendant', 'case_type': 'Personal injury', 'engagement_sought': 'Independent forensic engineering and safety analysis report'}
caseinvolvement: Representing the defendant in the same personal injury case; learned of Engineer A's prior termination by plaintiff's attorney; sought to retain Engineer A to provide an independent forensic engineering and safety analysis report for the defense.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:58.764840+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:58.764840+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_party_attorney', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney'}
relationships: {'type': 'seeks_to_retain', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report
textreferences: seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.760364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
type: Plaintiff-SideLitigationRetainingAttorney
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Obligation Arising From Plaintiff Attorney Engagement
attributes: {'party_represented': 'Plaintiff', 'case_type': 'Personal injury', 'engagement_outcome': 'Terminated Engineer A upon unfavorable analysis'}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer A to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case; terminated Engineer A's services (with full fee) when Engineer A could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:58.764840+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:58.764840+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retained_expert', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.760218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 76-3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 82-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

BER Case 82-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:43:03.946944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Independent Report Framing Non-Cure Engineer A Defense Engagement
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Defense Attorney X framed the new engagement as 'separate and independent'; the Board found this framing insufficient to cure the conflict created by Engineer A's prior plaintiff-side confidential access.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense did not cure, mitigate, or override the irresolvable conflict of interest created by his prior confidential access to the plaintiff's information — the independence of the analytical process being irrelevant to the ethical bar created by the prior confidential access.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b
sourcetext: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report'
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the defense engagement and throughout its duration
textreferences: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report'
textreferences: See also Section II.4.b
textreferences: we do not believe that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.776832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary Acknowledged in Engineer A Analysis
type: AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's argument that termination of the plaintiff-side engagement freed him to accept the defense-side engagement
balancingwith: Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Principle
balancingwith: Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledged the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney — recognizing the principle that engineers are not bound by perpetual absolute loyalty to former clients — but distinguished this case because the ethical obligation persisted for the duration of the proceeding
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The Board acknowledged the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition boundary (engineers are not perpetually bound to former clients) but held it inapplicable here because the proceeding-duration loyalty obligation had not yet expired — the principle defines the outer limit but not the minimum floor
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
sourcetext: It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
tensionresolution: The absolute loyalty prohibition boundary was acknowledged but distinguished — it does not apply to extinguish obligations that persist for the duration of the specific proceeding in which confidential access was granted
textreferences: It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
textreferences: we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.774205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Inapplicable To Same-Matter Defense Engagement
type: AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Personal injury litigation forensic engagement
balancingwith: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
balancingwith: Switching Sides Prohibition in Adversarial Proceedings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's acceptance of the defense-side engagement cannot be justified by the principle that engineers are not perpetually bound to former clients, because that principle permits adverse engagements only in unrelated matters — the defense engagement is in the same matter as the plaintiff-side engagement
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The Absolute Loyalty Prohibition's exception for unrelated matters does not apply here — the proposed defense engagement is directly related to (indeed, the same as) the prior plaintiff-side engagement; the principle therefore does not authorize the defense engagement
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
sourcetext: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
tensionresolution: The same-matter character of the proposed defense engagement means the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition's permissive exception is unavailable — the Switching Sides Prohibition and Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition control
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.766501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information Access from Plaintiff
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial cooperative engagement with Attorney Z through at least the conclusion of the legal proceeding
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A's possession of confidential documents, information, and materials provided by plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney during the first engagement
terminatedby: Not terminated — persists beyond formal relationship termination
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind
triggeringevent: Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney providing Engineer A with documents and information in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner during the first analysis
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.764062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest — Simultaneous Opposing-Side Obligations
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X through Board determination
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's structural conflict arising from having served plaintiff's side and then accepting retention by defendant's side in the same active legal proceeding
terminatedby: Board's ethical determination; Engineer A's disengagement from the cross-side role
textreferences: All of the aforementioned cases represent longheld BER views relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another
textreferences: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard
textreferences: the ethical dilemma at hand
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepting engagement from Attorney X while holding confidential information and continuing loyalty obligations to Attorney Z's client
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.764644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Ethical Dilemma — Competing Duties in Adversarial Proceeding
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X through Board determination
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's competing duties between obligation to new client (Attorney X/defendant), continuing loyalty to former client (Attorney Z/plaintiff), and overarching duty of objectivity as expert
terminatedby: Board's ethical determination resolving the priority ordering
textreferences: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
textreferences: Had Engineer A ceased his involvement in the case following the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, he would have been acting in a wholly ethical manner.
textreferences: the duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepting cross-side engagement while holding continuing obligations to prior client and objective expert duties
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.758345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Services Terminated by Plaintiff Attorney
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From termination of services through subsequent cross-side retention
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer A's concluded engagement with Attorney Z / plaintiff side
terminatedby: Engineer A agrees to provide report for defendant's attorney (new engagement begins)
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
triggeringevent: Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services after Engineer A determines he cannot provide a favorable report; fee paid in full
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.760517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Personal Injury Case Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
type: AdversarialProceedingFactPolarizationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the entire case — from initial retention of Engineer A through the cross-side engagement
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case
stateclass: Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
subject: The ongoing personal injury litigation between plaintiff and defendant creating structural pressure on retained experts
terminatedby: Resolution of the litigation
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case
triggeringevent: Personal injury lawsuit initiated, creating adversarial context in which each attorney seeks expert support for their respective client's position
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.761039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Pre-Termination Ethical Dilemma Discussion Engineer A Attorney Z
type: Pre-TerminationEthicalDilemmaDisclosuretoOriginalClientConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's engagement with plaintiff's Attorney Z was terminated, after which he accepted retention by defense Attorney X in the same personal injury case without having discussed the ethical implications with Attorney Z.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Pre-Termination Ethical Dilemma Disclosure to Original Client Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required, at a bare minimum, to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would enable his subsequent retention by the opposing defense attorney in the same proceeding.
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:21:43.168593+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions
sourcetext: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z
temporalscope: Before or at the time of termination of the engagement with Attorney Z
textreferences: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z
textreferences: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.776510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
type: AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X learned of the specific circumstances of Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z — including that Engineer A had concluded the plaintiff was at fault — and then sought to retain Engineer A, making the motivation for retention transparent.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for seeking his retention was specifically tied to his prior access to plaintiff-side confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a defense-favorable report, and to decline the engagement on that basis.
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
temporalscope: Upon being approached by Attorney X after termination by Attorney Z
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.767470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation Violation
type: AdversarialRetentionMotivationAwarenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X sought to retain Engineer A knowing of his prior termination by plaintiff's attorney. The Board found that Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events, and that even subjective naivety would not excuse his acceptance.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Attorney X's motivation for retaining him was his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information and his perceived ability to provide a favorable defense report, and to decline the retention on that basis.
sourcetext: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
temporalscope: At the time of being approached by Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was so naive as to believe that Attorney X was unaware of the circumstances of his termination, we believe that this would not excuse his actions.
textreferences: It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.775095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Invoked for Engineer A Post-Relationship Obligations
type: ConfidentialityDurationIndeterminacyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Duration of Engineer A's confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the plaintiff after termination of his engagement with Attorney Z
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledged that it could not specify precisely how long Engineer A's post-relationship confidentiality and loyalty obligations to the plaintiff would persist, establishing the indeterminate nature of post-relationship confidentiality duration while setting a minimum floor at the proceeding's duration
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The Board's explicit refusal to specify the outer bound of post-relationship confidentiality duration reflects the indeterminacy principle — the duration is contextually determined and cannot be fixed in advance — while the proceeding-duration floor provides the minimum threshold
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Principle
sourcetext: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time.
tensionresolution: The indeterminacy principle was applied to acknowledge the open-ended nature of the obligation while the Board provided the minimum anchor of proceeding duration
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time.
textreferences: we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.774047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
type: ContinuingPost-TerminationLoyaltyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From termination of Engineer A's relationship with Attorney Z through at least the conclusion of the legal proceeding
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
stateclass: Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's persisting ethical obligations to Attorney Z and the plaintiff after formal termination of the professional relationship
terminatedby: Conclusion of the legal proceeding (not yet terminated at time of analysis)
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time
textreferences: we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding
textreferences: while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
triggeringevent: Termination of Engineer A's retainer with Attorney Z while the legal proceeding remained active
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.763880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Switching Sides Full Discussion With Attorney Z Obligation Violation
type: SwitchingSidesFullDiscussionWithOriginalClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
casecontext: Engineer A accepted defense retention without first fully discussing the conflict with Attorney Z (plaintiff's attorney), who was his original retaining client. The Board held this discussion was required at a bare minimum.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Loyalty Principle Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations to Plaintiff
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense attorney, so that Attorney Z had the opportunity to address the conflict, provide consent, or otherwise resolve the situation.
sourcetext: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
temporalscope: Before accepting retention by Attorney X; at the time of or immediately upon being approached by Attorney X
textreferences: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.774808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer Non-Advocate Status Demonstrated And Then Undermined By Engineer A
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateStatusinAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Personal injury litigation forensic engagement
balancingwith: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A correctly applied the non-advocate principle by refusing to produce a plaintiff-favorable report when technical findings did not support it; however, his subsequent acceptance of the defense engagement — after the defense attorney specifically sought him out because of his adverse findings about the plaintiff — raises concerns that he is being recruited as a de facto defense advocate rather than an independent expert
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The defense attorney's specific motivation for retaining Engineer A — knowledge that Engineer A's analysis was adverse to the plaintiff — suggests that the defense is seeking to exploit Engineer A's prior findings rather than obtain truly independent analysis; this instrumentalization of Engineer A's prior work is inconsistent with the non-advocate principle
invokedby: Attorney X Defense Retaining Attorney
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
tensionresolution: The non-advocate principle requires that Engineer A's analysis be genuinely independent — but the circumstances of the defense retention (sought specifically because of prior adverse findings about the plaintiff) make genuine independence structurally impossible
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.766681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Affirmed for Engineer A
type: ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's forensic engineering and safety analysis role in the personal injury litigation
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board affirmed that Engineer A's role as a forensic expert was not to advocate for the retaining attorney's client but to provide objective technical analysis — praising his initial conduct of producing an adverse report and condemning his subsequent acceptance of the opposing party's retention as incompatible with independent forensic analysis
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-advocate principle cuts in two directions here: it validates Engineer A's initial objectivity (producing an adverse report) and simultaneously condemns his switching sides (because the defense attorney's motivation was to obtain a favorable report, not independent analysis)
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
sourcetext: it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
tensionresolution: The non-advocate principle reinforces that the defense attorney's expectation of a favorable report from Engineer A was itself ethically problematic, and Engineer A's awareness of that expectation compounded his ethical violation
textreferences: Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.
textreferences: We make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'
textreferences: it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.773137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied By Engineer A In Plaintiff Engagement
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by plaintiff's attorney, determined through his review and analysis that the evidence pointed to plaintiff fault rather than defendant fault, and declined to produce a report favorable to the plaintiff — correctly applying the forensic expert non-advocate objectivity standard.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Affirmed for Engineer A
derived from principle: Objectivity Principle Affirmed in Engineer A Forensic Role
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts rather than producing a report favorable to the retaining party; he correctly fulfilled this obligation by refusing to produce a plaintiff-favorable report when his analysis indicated the plaintiff was at fault.
sourcetext: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
temporalscope: Upon completion of forensic review and analysis during the plaintiff-side engagement
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.767923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation Violated By Engineer A Pre-Termination
type: SwitchingSidesFullDiscussionWithOriginalClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Services Terminated by Plaintiff Attorney
casecontext: Engineer A determined he could not produce a plaintiff-favorable report and his services were terminated; there is no indication he discussed with Attorney Z the ethical implications of his potential subsequent retention by the defense, depriving Attorney Z of the opportunity to address the conflict or provide consent.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Loyalty Principle Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations to Plaintiff
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to fully discuss his ethical dilemma with Attorney Z before allowing his engagement to be terminated in a manner that would enable him to be retained by the opposing defense party in the same matter.
sourcetext: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
temporalscope: Before or at the time of termination of the plaintiff-side engagement
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.767784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violated By Engineer A Same Matter Defense Engagement
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Cross-Side Retention in Active Litigation
prevails over: Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
casecontext: Engineer A had gained specialized knowledge about the personal injury case — including access to the plaintiff and case documents — while retained by Attorney Z; no consent from Attorney Z or the plaintiff is indicated before Engineer A accepted the defense engagement.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Triggered By Same-Matter Defense Engagement
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of Attorney Z and the plaintiff before participating in or representing the adverse (defense) interest in the same personal injury proceeding in which he had gained specialized forensic knowledge on behalf of the plaintiff.
sourcetext: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
temporalscope: Before accepting retention by Attorney X in the same matter
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
textreferences: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.767299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation Engaged By Engineer A Post-Termination Defense Engagement
type: FormerClientConfidentialityPerpetuationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
casecontext: Attorney Z transmitted case documents, access to the plaintiff, and strategic case information to Engineer A during the forensic engagement; Engineer A's services were terminated but the confidentiality obligation persisted; accepting the defense engagement created an irresolvable risk of using or being influenced by that confidential information.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Obligation Arising From Plaintiff Attorney Engagement
derived from principle: Confidentiality Principle Applied To Plaintiff Case Information Transmitted To Engineer A
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the confidential information, documents, and case knowledge transmitted to him by Attorney Z and the plaintiff during the prior engagement, and to refrain from using or leveraging that information in the course of any subsequent defense-side engagement in the same matter.
sourcetext: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the moment of termination of the plaintiff-side engagement and throughout any subsequent engagement
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
textreferences: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.767635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Confidentiality Principle Invoked for Plaintiff Information Accessed by Engineer A
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Plaintiff's confidential case documents and information shared with Engineer A during initial retention
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The confidential information, documents, and cooperative access provided by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney to Engineer A during his initial retention created a confidentiality obligation that persisted after the formal engagement ended and barred Engineer A from using that information in service of the opposing party
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board treated the plaintiff's voluntary transmission of confidential information to Engineer A as fully engaging his confidentiality obligation under Section III.4, consistent with the Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
invokedby: Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
tensionresolution: Confidentiality obligation prevailed; Engineer A could not credibly provide independent analysis for the defense because doing so would necessarily implicate his prior confidential access to the plaintiff's information
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
textreferences: we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.765669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial retention by Attorney Z onward; persists after termination
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A's possession of confidential case information, strategy, and analysis obtained during plaintiff-side engagement
terminatedby: Not terminated — confidential information obligations persist indefinitely
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
triggeringevent: Engineer A's review and analysis of plaintiff's case materials during engagement with Attorney Z
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.760687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
type: Cross-SideRetentionAfterConfidentialPlaintiffAccessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Attorney X's approach to Engineer A through Engineer A's agreement to provide the report
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:07:09.752783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
stateclass: Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
subject: Engineer A being retained by defendant's Attorney X after having conducted confidential review for plaintiff's Attorney Z in the same proceeding
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer A agrees to provide the report, making this an active and ongoing state
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report
triggeringevent: Attorney X learns of Engineer A's prior plaintiff-side engagement and termination, then seeks to retain Engineer A for the opposing side in the same case
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.760849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Triggered By Same-Matter Defense Engagement
type: FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Personal injury litigation forensic engagement
appliedto: Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having gained specialized forensic knowledge about the personal injury case on behalf of the plaintiff's attorney (former client), accepted an engagement adverse to the plaintiff in the same proceeding without the consent of all interested parties
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The specialized knowledge acquired during the plaintiff-side engagement — including the technical findings, case documents, and analytical conclusions — constitutes 'particular specialized knowledge' sufficient to trigger the prohibition on adverse participation in the same matter
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
tensionresolution: The prohibition is fully operative because the adverse engagement is in the same matter (not an unrelated matter), and no consent of all interested parties was obtained — the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition's exception for unrelated matters does not apply here
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
textreferences: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.765987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
type: Same-ProceedingCross-SideEngagementProhibitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A was approached by Attorney X through the conclusion of the legal proceeding
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney Z
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
stateclass: Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Prohibition State
subject: The absolute ethical prohibition on Engineer A providing services to the defendant in the same legal proceeding in which he had previously served the plaintiff, regardless of proposed mitigations
terminatedby: Conclusion of the legal proceeding
textreferences: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one'
textreferences: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
triggeringevent: Attorney X's approach to retain Engineer A in the same proceeding where Engineer A had previously served the opposing party
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.764990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Obligation Arising From Plaintiff Attorney Engagement
type: Client-TransmittedConfidentialityStrongerObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Confidential case information and forensic analysis
appliedto: Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Engineer mobility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Attorney Z transmitted case documents, access to the plaintiff, and strategic case information to Engineer A in the course of the forensic engagement — creating a strong confidentiality obligation that survived the termination of the engagement and bars the subsequent defendant-side engagement
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The information transmitted by Attorney Z to Engineer A was client-transmitted in the course of a professional engagement, triggering the stronger confidentiality obligation — Engineer A cannot use this information, even implicitly through his analytical framework, in the subsequent defense engagement
invokedby: Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
tensionresolution: The client-transmitted confidentiality obligation survives termination of the engagement and full payment of fees — the fact that Engineer A was paid does not extinguish the confidentiality obligation
textreferences: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.766320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer A In Plaintiff Engagement
type: ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Plaintiff-side forensic engineering and safety analysis
balancingwith: Client loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, upon completing his forensic review and analysis, determined that he could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff because the technical findings implicated the plaintiff rather than the defendant — demonstrating proper non-advocate objectivity in the initial engagement
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's refusal to produce an advocacy-driven report for the plaintiff is the ethically correct application of the non-advocate principle — he followed the technical evidence to its correct conclusion regardless of the retaining party's interests; however, this same principle is then violated in spirit when he accepts the defense engagement, as his prior exposure makes truly independent analysis impossible
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
sourcetext: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
tensionresolution: Non-advocate objectivity properly overrode client loyalty in the initial engagement; however, the subsequent defense engagement raises the question of whether 'independent and separate' analysis is achievable given prior exposure to plaintiff's confidential information
textreferences: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.766135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Affirmed in Engineer A Forensic Role
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's initial forensic analysis report prepared for plaintiff's attorney
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board affirmed that Engineer A's initial conduct — producing an analysis report inconsistent with the plaintiff's legal interests because that was his honest technical conclusion — exemplified proper forensic objectivity, and that engineers must 'call them as they see them' rather than act as hired guns
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board used Engineer A's initial objectivity as a positive exemplar to underscore the principle that forensic engineers owe objectivity to the technical truth, not to the retaining party's litigation interests — his error was not in his initial objectivity but in his subsequent switching sides
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: We make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'
tensionresolution: Objectivity is affirmed as the governing standard for forensic engineers; the fact that Engineer A's honest analysis was adverse to his retaining client was praised, not criticized
textreferences: Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client. Under the facts, Engineer A did not act in the role as a 'hired gun,' seeking to testify in favor of the client who was paying his fee.
textreferences: We make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'
textreferences: it has sometimes been suggested that engineers who act as paid expert witnesses have an inherent conflict between their duty to tell the truth and their obligation to perform their services consistent with the best interests of the client.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.770666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations
type: Proceeding-DurationLoyaltyPersistencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's post-termination obligations to the plaintiff during the ongoing personal injury litigation
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board established that Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff — as his former client — persisted for at least the full duration of the personal injury litigation, even though his formal engagement had been terminated, creating a floor below which post-relationship loyalty obligations cannot fall
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: While the Board declined to specify the outer limit of post-relationship loyalty duration, it established a clear minimum: the duty persists for the duration of the specific proceeding in which the engineer was retained and gained confidential access
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
invokedby: Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
principleclass: Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Principle
sourcetext: we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
tensionresolution: The proceeding-duration floor prevailed over the argument that termination of the formal engagement dissolved all loyalty obligations; the Board rejected the 'clean slate' argument while declining to specify how long beyond the proceeding the obligation might extend
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time. However, we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
textreferences: we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.773704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Resignation Non-Cure of Structural Adversarial Conflict Invoked Against Engineer A Termination Defense
type: ResignationNon-CureofStructuralAdversarialConflictPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's termination of engagement with Attorney Z as a purported cure for the conflict created by accepting retention by Attorney X
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's termination of his engagement with plaintiff's attorney was held insufficient to cure the ethical conflict created by his prior access to plaintiff's confidential information — the Board rejected the argument that formal disengagement constituted an adequate ethical remedy
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board distinguished between cases where prior resignation may be an appropriate ethical step (BER Case 76-3) and cases where the prior engagement created such substantive confidential access that resignation cannot neutralize the conflict — finding the present case fell in the latter category
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Resignation Non-Cure of Structural Adversarial Conflict Principle
sourcetext: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
tensionresolution: The indelibility of prior confidential access prevailed over the formal act of termination; the Board held that Engineer A's cessation of services for Attorney Z was not an adequate solution
textreferences: In some instances, it has been suggested by this Board that under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for an engineer to first resign a particular position, such as consultant to a municipality, before agreeing to perform services for a client that might have a conflicting interest. Obviously, the degree to which this may be the proper, ethical course of action is dictated by the particular facts and circumstances of a case.
textreferences: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
textreferences: the fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z does not mitigate the fact that Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.773871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Trigger
type: FormerClientConfidentialityPerpetuationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
prevails over: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
casecontext: Attorney Z and the plaintiff provided Engineer A with confidential documents, access to the plaintiff, and strategic case information in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner during the forensic engagement. This transmission created a confidentiality obligation that persisted after termination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Obligation Arising From Plaintiff Attorney Engagement
derived from principle: Confidentiality Principle Applied To Plaintiff Case Information Transmitted To Engineer A
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to protect the confidential information, documents, and case materials transmitted to him by Attorney Z and the plaintiff during the forensic engagement, recognizing that the voluntary and cooperative transmission of this information created a heightened confidentiality obligation that survived the termination of the engagement.
sourcetext: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
temporalscope: From the time of transmission of confidential information through at least the conclusion of the proceeding
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
textreferences: In BER Case 82-2 ... the Board ruled that this action was not in accord with the Code of Ethics. In that case this Board noted Section II.1.c.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.776069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Confidentiality Principle Applied To Plaintiff Case Information Transmitted To Engineer A
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Confidential plaintiff case information and forensic analysis materials
balancingwith: Engineer mobility
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The confidential case information, documents, and analytical access provided by Attorney Z to Engineer A during the plaintiff-side forensic engagement created a confidentiality obligation that survived termination of the engagement and bars Engineer A from using that information — even implicitly — in the subsequent defense engagement
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The confidentiality obligation applies to all information obtained in the course of the professional engagement, including the analytical conclusions Engineer A reached about fault — using those conclusions (even without explicit disclosure) in the defense engagement violates the confidentiality principle
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
invokedby: Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
tensionresolution: Confidentiality obligation survives termination and full payment of fees — the plaintiff's attorney's transmission of confidential information to Engineer A created an obligation that cannot be extinguished by the mechanics of engagement termination
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
textreferences: Engineer A is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.767002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Disclosure Insufficiency for Structural Conflict Invoked Against Independent Report Claim
type: DisclosureInsufficiencyforStructuralConflictofInterest
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's claimed ability to provide an independent report for Attorney X despite prior retention by Attorney Z
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense was held insufficient to cure the structural conflict created by his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information — because the conflict was structural and indelible, not curable by procedural commitment to independence
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board rejected the proposition that a commitment to independent analysis could cure a structural conflict arising from prior confidential access — the contamination of prior knowledge makes truly independent analysis impossible regardless of the engineer's stated intentions
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Disclosure Insufficiency for Structural Conflict of Interest
sourcetext: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
tensionresolution: The structural nature of the conflict prevailed over Engineer A's assurance of independence; the Board found he would not be capable of providing a truly separate and independent report
textreferences: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind
textreferences: we do not believe that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.773470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Divided Loyalty Irreconcilability Invoked in Engineer A Dual-Party Context
type: DividedLoyaltyIrreconcilabilityinDual-ClientEngineeringRoles
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's sequential retention by plaintiff's attorney and then defense attorney in the same proceeding
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied the divided loyalty analysis from BER Cases 76-3 and 74-2 to distinguish permissible dual engagement (where loyalties are not divided) from impermissible engagement (where the engineer is effectively on both sides of a divided issue) — finding Engineer A's situation analogous to BER Case 76-3 where the engineer was on both sides
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board distinguished BER Case 74-2 (part-time municipal consultants whose loyalties were not divided) from BER Case 76-3 (engineer on both sides of a divided issue) and found Engineer A's situation fell squarely in the latter category — his sequential retention by opposing parties in the same proceeding created an irreconcilable division of loyalty
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Divided Loyalty Irreconcilability in Dual-Client Engineering Roles
sourcetext: the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue.
tensionresolution: The irreconcilability of divided loyalty prevailed; the argument that Engineer A's loyalties were no longer divided because he had terminated the first engagement was rejected because the ethical obligation to the former client persisted
textreferences: It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
textreferences: the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue.
textreferences: we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.773296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Divided Loyalty Violation
type: ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateObjectivityinSettlementContextObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
defeasible under: Engineer A Conflict of Interest — Simultaneous Opposing-Side Obligations
prevails over: Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
casecontext: The Board applied the divided loyalty analysis from BER Cases 76-3 and 74-2, finding that unlike permissible dual engagements where loyalties are not divided, Engineer A's sequential engagement on both sides of the same matter created an irreconcilable divided loyalty situation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Divided Loyalty Irreconcilability Invoked in Engineer A Dual-Party Context
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Settlement Context Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to avoid placing himself in a position of divided loyalty by accepting retention from both sides of the same adversarial proceeding, recognizing that his prior plaintiff-side engagement and his subsequent defense-side engagement created an irreconcilable conflict of interest.
sourcetext: the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue.
temporalscope: From the time of accepting defense retention
textreferences: Engineer A was doing more than offering his expertise in engineering matters as an aid to a fuller understanding by the county board; he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the county engineers.
textreferences: the key distinction between BER Case 74-2 and BER Case 76-3 was that in BER Case 74-2 the engineer's loyalties were not divided, whereas in BER Case 76-3 Engineer A is seen to be on both sides of the divided issue.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.776213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Side Retention in Active Litigation
type: Cross-SideRetentionAfterConfidentialPlaintiffAccessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A accepted retention by Attorney X through the Board's ethical determination
affectedparties: Attorney X (defendant's attorney)
affectedparties: Attorney Z (plaintiff's attorney)
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:09:00.386512+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
stateclass: Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
subject: Engineer A's engagement by defendant's attorney (Attorney X) after having been retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) in the same legal proceeding
terminatedby: Board determination that the engagement was ethically impermissible
textreferences: Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind
textreferences: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
triggeringevent: Attorney X's approach to retain Engineer A after Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z in the same proceeding
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.763702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violation
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
prevails over: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
casecontext: Engineer A accepted defense retention without obtaining consent from his former client (plaintiff/Attorney Z), in violation of Section III.4.b., which requires consent of former clients before participating in adversarial proceedings involving knowledge gained in prior engagements.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to obtain the informed consent of the plaintiff and Attorney Z before accepting retention by the defense in the same personal injury matter, given that he had gained specialized forensic knowledge of the plaintiff's case through his prior engagement.
sourcetext: there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor
temporalscope: Before accepting retention by Attorney X
textreferences: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
textreferences: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard.
textreferences: there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.774672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
type: FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's retention by Attorney X to provide forensic analysis adverse to the plaintiff whose attorney had previously retained him
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having gained specialized knowledge of the plaintiff's case through his prior retention, was prohibited from participating as a forensic expert for the defense in the same proceeding without the consent of the plaintiff — the former client whose confidential information he had accessed
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board applied BER Case 82-6 precedent establishing that an engineer who gains specialized knowledge on behalf of a client cannot subsequently represent adverse interests in the same matter without consent of all interested parties
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
sourcetext: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on adverse participation in the same proceeding where specialized knowledge was gained prevailed; the fact that Engineer A was no longer formally retained by plaintiff's attorney did not dissolve the obligation
textreferences: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
textreferences: in BER Case 82-6, this Board ruled that where an engineer is retained by the U.S. government to study the causes of a dam failure, it would be unethical for the engineer to agree to be retained by the contractor involved in the construction of the dam.
textreferences: there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client, the U.S. government, to represent the interests of the contractor
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.765496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Correctly Applied In Initial Engagement Then Compromised By Defense Retention
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic engineering and safety analysis in personal injury case
balancingwith: Client loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A demonstrated objectivity by refusing to produce a plaintiff-favorable report when technical findings did not support it; however, accepting the defense engagement after being specifically recruited because of those adverse findings compromises the objectivity of any subsequent analysis
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: True objectivity in the defense engagement is structurally impossible because Engineer A has already formed analytical conclusions about the case during the plaintiff-side engagement — his subsequent 'independent' analysis for the defense cannot be genuinely independent of his prior exposure
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
tensionresolution: Objectivity requires not just the absence of conscious bias but the structural conditions for independent analysis — conditions that cannot exist when the engineer has already analyzed the same matter for the opposing party
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.766839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Switching Sides Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
type: SwitchingSidesProhibitioninAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X after termination by Attorney Z in the same personal injury proceeding
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and gained access to plaintiff's confidential documents and information, accepted retention by the defense attorney in the same personal injury litigation after termination of the plaintiff-side engagement — a paradigmatic switching-sides violation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board held that Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidential information, documents, and cooperative engagement created an indelible informational relationship that barred him from accepting the opposing party's retention in the same proceeding, regardless of formal termination of the first engagement
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Switching Sides Prohibition in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
tensionresolution: The switching-sides prohibition prevailed over Engineer A's autonomy to accept new engagements because the prior confidential access created an irreconcilable structural conflict that termination of the formal relationship could not cure
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
textreferences: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one'
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.765308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention In Same Personal Injury Case
type: SwitchingSidesForensicExpertProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Cross-Side Retention in Active Litigation
prevails over: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
casecontext: Engineer A was hired by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; after determining he could not produce a plaintiff-favorable report, his services were terminated; defense attorney (Attorney X) then sought and obtained Engineer A's agreement to provide an independent report for the defense in the same case.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:12:19.808401+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury case in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to confidential case documents, the plaintiff, and strategic analysis during the prior engagement.
sourcetext: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
temporalscope: Upon being approached by Attorney X after termination of the plaintiff-side engagement
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.767151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
type: ForensicExpertHonestyandIntegrityinCivilLitigationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter
defeasible under: Engineer A Ethical Dilemma — Competing Duties in Adversarial Proceeding
defeasible under: Personal Injury Case Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
prevails over: Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
casecontext: Engineer A correctly fulfilled this obligation during his plaintiff-side engagement by producing an analysis report that was inconsistent with the plaintiff's legal interests because the technical findings did not support a plaintiff-favorable conclusion. The Board affirmed this as wholly ethical conduct.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Objectivity Principle Affirmed in Engineer A Forensic Role
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity in Civil Litigation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to perform his forensic engineering services with honesty and integrity, refraining from selectively using data to defend the retaining client, and was required to report his findings truthfully even when those findings were adverse to the retaining party's legal interests.
sourcetext: Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of his plaintiff-side forensic engagement
textreferences: Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client.
textreferences: Had Engineer A ceased his involvement in the case following the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, he would have been acting in a wholly ethical manner.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.775906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Post-Termination
type: FormerClientConfidentialityPerpetuationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
defeasible under: Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
prevails over: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
casecontext: Engineer A had access to the plaintiff's confidential documents, information, and cooperative analytical access during his plaintiff-side engagement. After termination, he accepted defense retention, bringing that confidential knowledge into an adverse engagement.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Invoked for Engineer A Post-Relationship Obligations
derived from principle: Confidentiality Principle Invoked for Plaintiff Information Accessed by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to continue protecting the plaintiff's confidential information, documents, and facts obtained during his prior engagement even after the termination of his relationship with Attorney Z, and to refrain from using that information in service of the opposing party.
sourcetext: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
temporalscope: From termination of engagement with Attorney Z through at least the conclusion of the personal injury proceeding
textreferences: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
textreferences: we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.774949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence Obligation Violation
type: Proceeding-DurationFormerClientLoyaltyPersistenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
prevails over: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
casecontext: The Board held that Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff persisted for at least the duration of the legal proceeding, even after formal termination of his engagement with Attorney Z. This duty was violated by his acceptance of defense retention in the same proceeding.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Loyalty Principle Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations to Plaintiff
derived from principle: Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain a duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff as his former client for at least the full duration of the personal injury proceeding, precluding him from accepting adverse retention in the same matter during that period.
sourcetext: we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
temporalscope: For the full duration of the personal injury proceeding in which Engineer A was originally engaged
textreferences: How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time. However, we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
textreferences: we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.775610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
type: SwitchingSidesProhibitioninAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Personal injury litigation forensic engagement
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Engineer mobility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having been retained by plaintiff's attorney and having conducted forensic review and analysis in the same personal injury case, accepted retention by the defendant's attorney in the same proceeding after his initial engagement was terminated — constituting a paradigmatic switching-sides violation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:11:21.402975+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition applies because Engineer A gained access to the plaintiff's confidential case information, documents, and strategic knowledge during the initial engagement; the subsequent defendant-side engagement in the same matter is prohibited regardless of the termination of the initial engagement and full payment of fees
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
principleclass: Switching Sides Prohibition in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
tensionresolution: The switching-sides prohibition overrides any argument that termination of the engagement freed Engineer A from further obligations — the confidential information acquired during the plaintiff-side engagement cannot be unlearned and contaminates any purportedly 'independent' analysis for the defense
textreferences: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.765827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Loyalty Principle Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations to Plaintiff
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's post-termination obligations to the plaintiff in the ongoing personal injury litigation
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held that Engineer A retained a duty of trust and loyalty to the plaintiff as a former client that survived the formal termination of his engagement — this duty of loyalty, alongside confidentiality, barred him from accepting the opposing party's retention in the same proceeding
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:17:07.586626+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Loyalty in the forensic engineering context extends beyond the formal engagement period and encompasses an obligation not to use the trust relationship established during the engagement to the detriment of the former client in the same matter
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
invokedby: Plaintiff Former Client Adverse Party
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
tensionresolution: Loyalty to the former client prevailed over Engineer A's autonomy to accept new engagements in the same proceeding
textreferences: he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
textreferences: such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.772978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter
type: SwitchingSidesForensicExpertProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
competes with: Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Cross-Side Retention in Active Litigation
prevails over: Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
casecontext: Engineer A was initially retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis. After determining he could not produce a plaintiff-favorable report and being terminated, he accepted retention by the defense attorney (Attorney X) in the same personal injury case.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting retention by Attorney X (defense) in the same personal injury matter in which he had previously been retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff), having gained access to the plaintiff's confidential documents, information, and cooperative analytical access during his prior engagement.
sourcetext: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A was approached by Attorney X through the duration of the proceeding
textreferences: His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.
textreferences: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
textreferences: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.774375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Trigger
competes with: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Divided Loyalty Violation
competes with: Engineer A Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Post-Termination
defeasible under: Engineer A Cross-Side Retention in Active Litigation
defeasible under: Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
casecontext: Engineer A correctly applied the forensic expert objectivity obligation during his initial plaintiff-side engagement by producing an analysis report inconsistent with the plaintiff's legal interests when the technical findings did not support a plaintiff-favorable conclusion. The Board commended this conduct.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer A In Plaintiff Engagement
derived from principle: Objectivity Principle Correctly Applied In Initial Engagement Then Compromised By Defense Retention
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts in his forensic engagement, functioning as an objective expert rather than a partisan advocate for the plaintiff.
sourcetext: we note that in this case, Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of his plaintiff-side forensic engagement
textreferences: Under the facts, Engineer A did not act in the role as a 'hired gun,' seeking to testify in favor of the client who was paying his fee.
textreferences: We make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them.'
textreferences: we note that in this case, Engineer A developed an analysis report that was inconsistent with the legal interests of the client.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.775760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
type: IndependentReportPledgeNon-CureofSame-MatterSwitchingSidesObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violation
competes with: Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter
defeasible under: Engineer A Confidential Information Access from Plaintiff
defeasible under: Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
defeasible under: Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
casecontext: Engineer A attempted to justify his defense-side engagement by agreeing to provide a separate and independent report. The Board rejected this as an adequate cure, finding that Engineer A could not credibly segregate his prior knowledge from his current analysis.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Disclosure Insufficiency for Structural Conflict Invoked Against Independent Report Claim
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure of Same-Matter Switching Sides Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his agreement to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report' for the defense did not cure the ethical conflict created by his prior access to the plaintiff's confidential information in the same matter, and to decline the engagement on that basis.
sourcetext: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
temporalscope: At the time of accepting defense retention and agreeing to provide an independent report
textreferences: Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a 'separate and independent' report for the defendant in this case. (See also Section II.4.b.)
textreferences: Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.775286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
type: TerminationNon-CureofSame-MatterAdversarialConflictObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence Obligation Violation
competes with: Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention In Same Personal Injury Case
defeasible under: Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
defeasible under: Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
defeasible under: Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
casecontext: Engineer A's engagement with plaintiff's attorney was terminated before he accepted defense retention. He may have believed termination resolved the conflict. The Board explicitly rejected this reasoning, holding that termination alone was insufficient to cure the structural adversarial conflict.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Resignation Non-Cure of Structural Adversarial Conflict Invoked Against Engineer A Termination Defense
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:19:02.353557+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the mere termination of his engagement with Attorney Z did not cure the ethical conflict that would arise from accepting defense retention in the same matter, and to decline the defense engagement accordingly.
sourcetext: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
temporalscope: From the moment of termination by Attorney Z through the duration of the proceeding
textreferences: In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
textreferences: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one'
textreferences: the fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z does not mitigate the fact that Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc.
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.775442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
type: ForensicExpertSwitchingSidesEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary Acknowledged in Engineer A Analysis
adheres to principle: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Inapplicable To Same-Matter Defense Engagement
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Invoked for Engineer A Post-Relationship Obligations
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Principle Applied To Plaintiff Case Information Transmitted To Engineer A
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Principle Invoked for Plaintiff Information Accessed by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Disclosure Insufficiency for Structural Conflict Invoked Against Independent Report Claim
adheres to principle: Divided Loyalty Irreconcilability Invoked in Engineer A Dual-Party Context
adheres to principle: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer A In Plaintiff Engagement
adheres to principle: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Affirmed for Engineer A
adheres to principle: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
adheres to principle: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition Triggered By Same-Matter Defense Engagement
adheres to principle: Loyalty Principle Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations to Plaintiff
adheres to principle: Objectivity Principle Affirmed in Engineer A Forensic Role
adheres to principle: Objectivity Principle Correctly Applied In Initial Engagement Then Compromised By Defense Retention
adheres to principle: Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Invoked for Engineer A Post-Termination Obligations
adheres to principle: Resignation Non-Cure of Structural Adversarial Conflict Invoked Against Engineer A Termination Defense
adheres to principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A
adheres to principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
has obligation: Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention
has obligation: Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Trigger
has obligation: Engineer A Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Divided Loyalty Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
has obligation: Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Post-Termination
has obligation: Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence Obligation Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Switching Sides Full Discussion With Attorney Z Obligation Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter
has obligation: Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
has obligation: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied By Engineer A In Plaintiff Engagement
has obligation: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violated By Engineer A Same Matter Defense Engagement
has obligation: Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation Engaged By Engineer A Post-Termination Defense Engagement
has obligation: Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation Violated By Engineer A Pre-Termination
has obligation: Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention In Same Personal Injury Case
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (forensic specialist)', 'specialty': 'Engineering and safety analysis', 'termination_status': 'Terminated by Attorney Z with fee paid in full', 'subsequent_engagement': 'Agreed to provide report for Attorney X (defense)'}
caseinvolvement: Initially retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; determined he could not provide a report favorable to the plaintiff; was terminated with full fee paid; subsequently agreed to provide an independent report for the defendant's attorney (Attorney X) — the paradigm case of switching sides in litigation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 172
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T18:06:58.764840+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 172
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T18:06:58.764840+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney'}
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_client', 'target': 'Attorney X Defense Retaining Attorney'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is a forensic engineer
textreferences: Attorney X…seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to provide the report
textreferences: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff
textreferences: Engineer A is a forensic engineer
textreferences: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
textreferences: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff
wasattributedto: Case 172 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T18:28:40.761201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 172 Extraction