ProEthica Case 179 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.469888
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client
type: RepeatLitigationClientManufacturingCompany
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Corporate manufacturing company', 'litigation_types': ['Patent litigation (two matters)', 'Product liability (adverse party)'], 'retention_count': 2}
caseinvolvement: ABC Manufacturing retained Engineer A twice for patent litigation review and was the adverse party in the product liability matter in which Engineer A was retained by the plaintiff's attorney. The repeat-client relationship became the subject of opposing counsel's cross-examination, raising questions about Engineer A's independence.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:27.451338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:27.451338+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_party_to', 'target': 'Attorney X Plaintiff-Side Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Repeat Litigation Client Manufacturing Company
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.470953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Absolute Conflict Avoidance Standard Non-Application Engineer A Sequential Engagements
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureSupersessionofAbsoluteAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A served as expert witness for ABC Manufacturing in two patent matters and for opposing plaintiff in an unrelated product liability matter; the Board evaluated whether this sequential service violated the Code under the current disclosure-based standard rather than the obsolete absolute-avoidance standard.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review evaluating Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained from applying the obsolete absolute-avoidance conflict standard to Engineer A's sequential engagements; the operative standard required only disclosure of known or potential conflicts, not avoidance of all situations that could place the engineer adverse to a former client.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (evolved disclosure-based standard); BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest.
temporalscope: At time of BER review of Engineer A's conduct
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest.
textreferences: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.485397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Accept Adverse Plaintiff Retention
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Expert/Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Creating a record of having worked both for and against ABC Manufacturing, which could later be used to imply impropriety
foreseen unintended effects: Potential perception of disloyalty or conflict of interest by ABC Manufacturing or future observers
foreseen unintended effects: Taking a position adverse to the interests of a former client (ABC Manufacturing)
fulfills obligation text: Competence: accepted work within her area of professional expertise
fulfills obligation text: Professional autonomy and independence: exercised independent judgment to accept a legitimate engagement
guided by principle text: Disclosure of known or potential conflicts rather than absolute avoidance
guided by principle text: Faithful agency limited to active engagements, not perpetual loyalty to former clients
guided by principle text: Objectivity in forensic engineering (engineers are not advocates)
guided by principle text: Professional independence and autonomy
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide competent expert services in the product liability matter on behalf of the plaintiff, fulfilling the new professional engagement
raises obligation text: Disclosure obligation: presumed to have assessed and managed any potential conflict of interest through disclosure (modern NSPE standard)
raises obligation text: Potential tension with duty of loyalty to former client ABC Manufacturing, though Board concluded this did not rise to a prohibited conflict given the unrelated subject matter
requires capability text: Ability to maintain objectivity when working within the legal adversarial system
requires capability text: Conflict of interest assessment and disclosure judgment
requires capability text: Expert technical knowledge applicable to the product liability matter
requires capability text: Forensic engineering analysis and opinion formation
temporal marker: Several years after the initial ABC Manufacturing engagement
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Several years after working for ABC Manufacturing, Engineer A chose to accept retention by Attorney X, who represented a plaintiff in a product liability case against ABC Manufacturing, a matter unrelated to the earlier patent litigation. This decision placed Engineer A in a position adverse to her former client.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486701
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Accept Adverse Plaintiff Retention → Impropriety Implied by Counsel
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: During cross-examination in the third engagement, opposing counsel publicly implied that Engineer A had acted improperly, a line of attack made possible only because Engineer A had chosen to accept retention adverse to a former client.
cause: Accept Adverse Plaintiff Retention
counterfactual: Had Engineer A declined the adverse retention, opposing counsel would have had no factual basis to imply switching-sides impropriety during cross-examination
effect: Impropriety Implied by Counsel
necessary factors: A litigation context enabling cross-examination
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to accept an adverse role against ABC Manufacturing
necessary factors: Existence of a prior professional relationship with ABC Manufacturing
necessary factors: Opposing counsel's awareness of the sequential relationship history
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); Opposing Counsel (proximate actor)
sufficient factors: Prior relationship + adverse acceptance + litigation forum = sufficient basis for opposing counsel to raise impropriety publicly
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Accept Initial ABC Retention
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Expert/Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Establishment of a prior professional relationship with ABC Manufacturing that could complicate future engagements
foreseen unintended effects: Potential future perception of loyalty or partiality toward ABC Manufacturing
fulfills obligation text: Competence: accepted work within her area of expertise (NSPE Code II.2)
fulfills obligation text: Faithful agent and trustee: performed services diligently for client ABC Manufacturing (NSPE Code II.4)
fulfills obligation text: Public safety and professional service: provided honest expert opinion in litigation context
guided by principle text: Faithful agency to client
guided by principle text: Professional competence
guided by principle text: Professional independence and objectivity in forensic engineering
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide competent expert review services in patent litigation within her area of expertise and fulfill the professional engagement
requires capability text: Document review and analysis
requires capability text: Expert knowledge in the relevant technical domain of patent litigation
requires capability text: Formation and articulation of expert opinion
requires capability text: Understanding of forensic engineering standards and obligations
temporal marker: Earliest event in timeline; exact date unspecified
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A chose to accept retention by ABC Manufacturing to review documents and form an expert opinion in a patent litigation matter within her area of expertise. She performed the requested services and received payment.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Accept Initial ABC Retention → Prior Relationship Exists at Adverse Retention
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: At the moment Engineer A accepted retention by Attorney X against ABC Manufacturing, a prior professional relationship existed, one that was created by Engineer A's original decision to accept retention by ABC Manufacturing.
cause: Accept Initial ABC Retention
counterfactual: Had Engineer A declined the initial ABC retention, no prior professional relationship would have existed at the time of the adverse retention, and the conflict-of-interest question would not have arisen
effect: Prior Relationship Exists at Adverse Retention
necessary factors: Completion of paid professional services creating a professional relationship
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional acceptance of the initial ABC engagement
necessary factors: Temporal persistence of that relationship into future engagements
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Acceptance of retention + completion of work + receipt of payment = established prior professional relationship
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Accept Re-Retention by ABC
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Expert/Forensic Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Creating a three-engagement record of alternating loyalty (for ABC, against ABC, for ABC) that could be characterized as opportunistic or improper
foreseen unintended effects: Exposure to cross-examination challenges implying impropriety based on the pattern of engagements
foreseen unintended effects: Potential perception that Engineer A's opinions were for sale to whoever retained her
fulfills obligation text: Competence: accepted work within her area of expertise
fulfills obligation text: Faithful agent and trustee: performed services for ABC Manufacturing in the new engagement (NSPE Code II.4)
fulfills obligation text: Professional autonomy and independence: exercised independent judgment to accept a legitimate engagement
guided by principle text: Disclosure of conflicts rather than absolute avoidance
guided by principle text: Individual engineer judgment and discretion in accepting engagements
guided by principle text: Objectivity and non-advocacy in forensic engineering
guided by principle text: Professional independence and autonomy
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide competent expert services to ABC Manufacturing in the new patent litigation matter, fulfilling the professional engagement
raises obligation text: Disclosure obligation: presumed to have assessed and disclosed any potential conflicts
raises obligation text: Potential tension with residual professional relationship with Attorney X or the plaintiff from the prior adverse engagement, though no explicit violation identified by the Board
requires capability text: Ability to maintain objectivity despite complex prior relationship history with client
requires capability text: Conflict of interest assessment across multiple prior engagements
requires capability text: Credibility maintenance under cross-examination scrutiny
requires capability text: Expert technical knowledge in the relevant patent litigation domain
requires capability text: Forensic engineering analysis and expert opinion formation
temporal marker: Several years after the plaintiff-side product liability engagement
temporal sequence: 7
within competence: true
comment: Several years after working against ABC Manufacturing in the product liability case, Engineer A chose to accept re-retention by ABC Manufacturing for a new, unrelated patent litigation matter. This decision re-established a professional relationship with a party she had previously worked against.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Accept Re-Retention by ABC → Impropriety Implied by Counsel
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The completed three-engagement sequential pattern, working for ABC, then against ABC, then for ABC again, provided opposing counsel the factual predicate to imply during cross-examination that Engineer A's loyalty and objectivity were for sale.
cause: Accept Re-Retention by ABC
counterfactual: Had Engineer A declined re-retention by ABC, the switching pattern would have been incomplete and the cross-examination attack on credibility would have been substantially weaker or unavailable
effect: Impropriety Implied by Counsel
necessary factors: A litigation forum in which the pattern could be exposed
necessary factors: Completion of all three sequential engagements creating a visible pattern
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional acceptance of re-retention by ABC after adverse work
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Three-phase switching pattern + litigation context = sufficient for credible public impropriety allegation by opposing counsel
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard-Sequential-Roles
type: AdversarialProceedingConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from professional ethics precedent)
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
textreferences: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing
usedby: Engineer A; opposing counsel; NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligations regarding disclosure and management of prior relationships with ABC Manufacturing when retained by opposing counsel, and the limits of loyalty to former clients in subsequent adversarial proceedings
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.470345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Appearance of Conflict Non-Equivalence Actual Conflict Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation
type: AppearanceofConflictNon-EquivalencetoActualConflictEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Opposing counsel implied impropriety based on Engineer A's sequential service pattern; the Board concluded that while reasonable persons might differ on whether an appearance of conflict existed, no actual conflict was demonstrated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review; Opposing Counsel
constraintclass: Appearance of Conflict Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained from finding a prohibited conflict of interest based solely on the appearance of impropriety created by Engineer A's sequential service on opposing sides of ABC Manufacturing litigation; the appearance of a conflict, without demonstration of an actual conflict, was insufficient to establish a Code violation.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers Section II.4; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
temporalscope: Throughout BER review and cross-examination of Engineer A
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Among the concerns expressed by supporters of this position was that engineers who were involved in conflict of interest situations created a poor image for the engineering profession because the issue raised the appearance of impropriety.
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.485542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Attorney X Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
type: Plaintiff-SideLitigationRetainingAttorney
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Legal professional / Attorney', 'litigation_type': 'Product liability (plaintiff representation)', 'adverse_party': 'ABC Manufacturing'}
caseinvolvement: Attorney X retained Engineer A as an expert in a product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing — the same company that had previously retained Engineer A. This created the multi-party relationship pattern that opposing counsel later challenged at trial.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:27.451338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:27.451338+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_to', 'target': 'ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.471091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

BER-Case-Precedent-Expert-Witness-Dual-Role
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedent on Expert Witness Dual/Sequential Roles
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Prior BER decisions on expert witness conduct, objectivity, and conflict of interest in litigation contexts provide analogical reasoning patterns for evaluating whether Engineer A's sequential service for and against ABC Manufacturing is ethically permissible
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.470806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

BER Case 76-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 76-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board of Ethical Review has also considered several cases involving the question of engineers providing and performing forensic engineering services and the ethical issues that arise in that context (See BER Cases 92-5, 82-6, 76-3)
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review has also considered several cases involving the question of engineers providing and performing forensic engineering services and the ethical issues that arise in that context (See BER Cases 92-5, 82-6, 76-3)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to establish analogical reasoning foundation for the current case
usedincontext: Referenced as prior BER precedent addressing ethical issues arising in forensic engineering services contexts
version: 1976
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.473369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

BER Case 82-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 82-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board of Ethical Review has also considered several cases involving the question of engineers providing and performing forensic engineering services and the ethical issues that arise in that context (See BER Cases 92-5, 82-6, 76-3)
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review has also considered several cases involving the question of engineers providing and performing forensic engineering services and the ethical issues that arise in that context (See BER Cases 92-5, 82-6, 76-3)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to establish analogical reasoning foundation for the current case
usedincontext: Referenced as prior BER precedent addressing ethical issues arising in forensic engineering services contexts, including contingency fees, licensure, and expert witness qualifications
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.473238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

BER Case 92-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 92-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board of Ethical Review has also considered several cases involving the question of engineers providing and performing forensic engineering services and the ethical issues that arise in that context (See BER Cases 92-5, 82-6, 76-3)
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review has also considered several cases involving the question of engineers providing and performing forensic engineering services and the ethical issues that arise in that context (See BER Cases 92-5, 82-6, 76-3)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to establish analogical reasoning foundation for the current case
usedincontext: Referenced as prior BER precedent addressing ethical issues arising in forensic engineering services contexts
version: 1992
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.473107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Board Rules No Prohibited Conflict
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Ethics Adjudicatory Body
foreseen unintended effects: Clarification that may not fully resolve the appearance of impropriety concern acknowledged in the discussion
foreseen unintended effects: Potential concern that the ruling could be used to justify acceptance of engagements that create more genuine conflicts
foreseen unintended effects: Risk that the ruling could be misread as endorsing a 'hired gun' approach to forensic engineering
fulfills obligation text: Correctly applying the modern NSPE Code standard (disclosure rather than absolute avoidance)
fulfills obligation text: Distinguishing engineering professional obligations from legal advocacy obligations
fulfills obligation text: Protecting engineer professional autonomy and independence from unwarranted restrictions
fulfills obligation text: Providing authoritative ethical guidance to the engineering profession
guided by principle text: Disclosure-based conflict of interest standard (modern NSPE Code)
guided by principle text: Engineers as objective experts, not advocates
guided by principle text: Faithful agency limited to active client relationships, not perpetual loyalty
guided by principle text: Individual engineer judgment and discretion in accepting engagements
guided by principle text: Professional autonomy and independence of engineers
has agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide authoritative ethical guidance clarifying that engineers do not owe perpetual absolute loyalty to former clients and that accepting unrelated engagements adverse to former clients does not violate the NSPE Code of Ethics
requires capability text: Analysis of conflict of interest principles in forensic engineering contexts
requires capability text: Application of prior BER precedents to new fact patterns
requires capability text: Authoritative interpretation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
requires capability text: Distinguishing engineering professional obligations from legal professional obligations
temporal marker: After the events described in the case; adjudicative decision
temporal sequence: 9
within competence: true
comment: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review deliberated on the facts and decided that Engineer A's sequential and opposing engagements with ABC Manufacturing did not constitute a prohibited conflict of interest under the NSPE Code of Ethics, affirming her professional autonomy to accept unrelated engagements regardless of prior adversarial history.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Board Rules No Prohibited Conflict → No Violation Finding Issued
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review deliberated on the facts and decided that Engineer A's sequential adverse engagements did not constitute a prohibited conflict of interest under the applicable ethics code, directly producing the formal no-violation conclusion.
cause: Board Rules No Prohibited Conflict
counterfactual: Had the Board ruled that a prohibited conflict existed, either by applying a stricter standard or finding disclosure requirements were not met, no no-violation finding would have been issued, and Engineer A's professional standing would have been formally damaged
effect: No Violation Finding Issued
necessary factors: NSPE Board's jurisdiction and authority to issue ethical findings
necessary factors: The Board's deliberative decision to apply the disclosure-based standard rather than a stricter one
necessary factors: The factual record of Engineer A's engagements being presented to the Board
necessary factors: The revised ethics code providing a permissive framework for the conduct at issue
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
sufficient factors: Board authority + revised permissive standard + Engineer A's conduct not violating disclosure requirements = sufficient for formal no-violation finding
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Case 179 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 5
total elements: 10
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Adverse Plaintiff Reten
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Initial ABC Retention
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Re-Retention by ABC
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

CausalLink_Board Rules No Prohibited Conf
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineering Profession Shifts
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer A to provide services to the parties in the manner described under the facts.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's sequential engagements were ethical, the analysis reveals a critical but underexplored procedural precondition: the permissibility of each successive engagement depended not merely on the factual unrelatedness of the matters, but on Engineer A's proactive disclosure of her prior relationship history to each new retaining party before accepting the engagement. The Board's conclusion implicitly assumes such disclosures occurred, but the case facts do not expressly confirm them. If Engineer A failed to disclose to Attorney X that she had previously served ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation before accepting the adverse product liability retention, or failed to disclose to ABC Manufacturing that she had served against them in the product liability matter before accepting the second patent retention, those omissions would have independently violated the faithful agent standard under Section II.4, regardless of whether the underlying matters were factually unrelated. The ethical permissibility of multi-party sequential engagement is therefore not self-executing upon a finding of factual unrelatedness; it is contingent on timely, complete, and voluntary disclosure to each client of all prior relationships with adverse parties. The Board's analysis would be strengthened by explicitly conditioning its compliance finding on the assumption that such disclosures were made.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's finding correctly distinguishes between an appearance of impropriety and an actual conflict of interest, but this distinction carries an underappreciated institutional cost that the Board does not fully address. When opposing counsel successfully raised Engineer A's multi-party engagement history during cross-examination to imply impropriety, the adversarial proceeding itself became a forum for litigating engineering ethics norms before a lay trier of fact. Even if Engineer A committed no actual ethical violation, the cross-examination episode demonstrates that the absence of a prophylactic disclosure or recusal standard creates a structural vulnerability: ethically permissible conduct can be weaponized to undermine the credibility of expert testimony and, by extension, the perceived integrity of forensic engineering as a profession. The Board's analysis would benefit from acknowledging that while no ethical violation occurred, the profession's long-term interest in the reliability and public trustworthiness of expert witness services may warrant a best-practice recommendation — short of a mandatory ethical rule — that engineers in multi-party sequential engagements involving the same corporate entity proactively address their engagement history in their expert reports or preliminary disclosures, thereby neutralizing the cross-examination vulnerability before it arises. Such a recommendation would preserve individual engineering judgment autonomy while reducing the reputational externalities that ethically permissible but appearance-generating conduct can impose on the broader profession.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's reliance on the categorical distinction between an engineer's role as an objective expert and an attorney's role as an advocate — to reject the importation of legal profession side-loyalty norms — is analytically sound but requires a more precise boundary condition to remain robust. The distinction holds clearly when the subject matter of successive engagements is genuinely unrelated, as in this case. However, the Board does not adequately address the scenario in which factual unrelatedness is present but confidential technical or strategic information acquired during a prior engagement could nonetheless be materially relevant to a subsequent adverse engagement involving the same corporate party. In such a scenario, the engineer's non-advocate status would not insulate her from an actual conflict, because the conflict would arise not from side-loyalty norms but from the faithful agent obligation under Section II.4 — specifically, the duty not to deploy, even inadvertently, confidential information acquired in a prior engagement to the detriment of a former client. The Board's analysis implicitly assumes that the three engagements were sufficiently compartmentalized that no such information transfer risk existed, but this assumption is not examined. A complete analytical framework would require Engineer A to affirmatively assess, before accepting each successive engagement, whether any technical knowledge, litigation strategy, or proprietary process information acquired in a prior engagement could provide an unfair advantage or cause harm to the former client in the new matter — and to decline or disclose accordingly. The ethical permissibility of sequential adverse engagements is therefore bounded not only by factual unrelatedness of the legal matters, but by the absence of transferable confidential information that could compromise the former client's interests.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101, Engineer A's obligation to proactively disclose her prior relationship with ABC Manufacturing to Attorney X arose at the moment of initial retention inquiry — before accepting the adverse plaintiff engagement — not after. The faithful agent standard under NSPE Code Section II.4 requires that each client receive Engineer A's undivided professional loyalty within the scope of the engagement. To satisfy that standard, the disclosure to Attorney X would have needed to include: (1) the existence of a prior professional relationship with ABC Manufacturing; (2) the general nature of the services rendered (patent litigation expert review); (3) the approximate timeframe of that prior engagement; and (4) an affirmative representation that no confidential or proprietary information acquired during that prior engagement would be deployed in the adverse matter. A disclosure limited to acknowledging the prior relationship without addressing the knowledge-contamination risk would have been formally compliant but substantively incomplete. The Board's finding of ethical compliance implicitly presupposes that such disclosure occurred and was adequate, though the Board does not make this predicate finding explicit, which is an analytical gap in the opinion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102, Engineer A did have a disclosure obligation to ABC Manufacturing before accepting the second patent litigation retention, and ABC Manufacturing's silence cannot be treated as implied consent without an affirmative disclosure having first been made. The faithful agent standard requires that a client be positioned to make an informed decision about retaining an expert who has previously served against it. Implied consent is legally and ethically meaningful only when the party alleged to have consented possessed the material facts necessary to exercise genuine choice. If Engineer A disclosed her prior adverse service in the product liability matter to ABC Manufacturing before accepting the second retention, and ABC Manufacturing proceeded with the retention without objection, that conduct would constitute informed acquiescence sufficient to satisfy the NSPE Code's disclosure norms. However, if no such disclosure was made, ABC Manufacturing's silence would be legally meaningless as consent and would expose Engineer A to a retroactive conflict challenge of the kind opposing counsel actually raised at trial. The Board's opinion does not resolve whether this disclosure was in fact made, which is a significant omission given that the entire ethical permissibility of the second retention depends on it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103, the fact that opposing counsel was able to mount a plausible appearance-of-impropriety challenge during cross-examination does suggest that Engineer A had a prudential, if not strictly ethical, obligation to preemptively address her multi-party engagement history in her expert report or testimony. The NSPE Code distinguishes between an actual conflict of interest and a mere appearance of one, and the Board correctly finds that appearance alone does not constitute a violation. However, the adversarial context of expert witness testimony creates a practical imperative that goes beyond minimum ethical compliance: an expert whose prior relationships are discoverable through ordinary litigation investigation and who fails to address them proactively in her report invites precisely the kind of cross-examination ambush that occurred here. While no NSPE Code provision expressly requires preemptive disclosure in expert reports, the objectivity principle and the faithful agent standard together support the conclusion that Engineer A's professional judgment should have led her to surface the prior relationship history affirmatively, both to protect her own credibility and to preserve the integrity of the engineering expert witness function. The Board's silence on this point leaves a gap that future practitioners should fill with a prophylactic disclosure practice even where no actual conflict exists.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104, the Board's analysis does not adequately account for the risk that confidential or proprietary information acquired during the first patent litigation retention could have been inadvertently deployed during the adverse product liability engagement. During the first patent litigation, Engineer A would plausibly have been exposed to ABC Manufacturing's technical processes, manufacturing tolerances, internal quality control procedures, litigation strategy, and expert witness vulnerabilities — all of which could have been material to a product liability claim against the same company. The Board's permissibility finding rests on the factual premise that the matters were unrelated, but factual unrelatedness of legal claims does not guarantee informational unrelatedness of the technical knowledge base. A more rigorous analysis would have required the Board to examine whether the product liability matter implicated any technical domain in which Engineer A had acquired non-public ABC Manufacturing information during the patent litigation. The absence of this inquiry means the Board's conclusion is conditionally valid at best: it holds only if the technical subject matter of the product liability matter was genuinely orthogonal to the knowledge Engineer A acquired in the patent context. This is an empirical question the Board treats as resolved by the bare assertion of factual unrelatedness, which is analytically insufficient.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201, the tension between bounded former-client loyalty and the faithful agent standard is real but resolvable without contradiction. The faithful agent standard under NSPE Code Section II.4 is engagement-scoped: it imposes a duty of undivided loyalty and trust to the current client within the boundaries of the active engagement, not a perpetual duty of devotion to all prior clients across all future matters. Once an engagement concludes, the residual obligations are informational — specifically, the duty not to deploy confidential information acquired during the prior engagement against the former client — rather than relational, meaning there is no duty to refuse all future adverse engagements. This reading preserves the faithful agent standard's integrity while rejecting the absolutist interpretation that would effectively prohibit engineers from serving in any matter involving a former client on the opposing side. The principle tension dissolves when the faithful agent duty is understood as temporally bounded and informationally defined rather than as a perpetual relational loyalty. The Board's conclusion implicitly adopts this reading, though it does not articulate the theoretical basis with sufficient precision.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202, the tension between objectivity-based multi-party engagement permissibility and the disclosure obligations that such engagement triggers is genuine and not fully resolved by the Board's analysis. Robust disclosure of prior adverse relationships serves the transparency function of the NSPE Code but simultaneously creates a record that opposing counsel can weaponize to challenge the expert's independence — as occurred here. This creates a structural paradox: the more faithfully Engineer A complies with disclosure obligations, the more material she provides for an appearance-of-impropriety attack; the less she discloses, the more she risks an actual conflict violation. The resolution lies in recognizing that the appearance of impropriety generated by disclosed prior relationships is categorically different from an actual conflict: it is a litigation tactic, not an ethical failure. The NSPE Code's distinction between appearance and actuality of conflict is therefore not merely a technicality but a principled response to this structural paradox. Engineer A's objectivity is not undermined by the disclosure of prior relationships; it is demonstrated by the transparency of that disclosure and the factual separateness of the matters. The Board reaches the right conclusion but does not articulate this paradox-resolution logic explicitly.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent and trustee to each successive client required proactive disclosure of prior relationships before accepting each new engagement, regardless of factual unrelatedness. The Kantian structure of the faithful agent duty is categorical: it does not permit the agent to withhold material information from a principal on the grounds that the agent has independently assessed the information as non-prejudicial. The client, not the engineer, is the appropriate decision-maker about whether a prior adverse relationship is acceptable. This means that even if Engineer A correctly determined that the matters were unrelated and that no confidential information would be deployed, she was still obligated to disclose the prior relationship to each successive client and allow that client to make an informed retention decision. The Board's finding of ethical compliance is consistent with this deontological analysis only if the required disclosures were in fact made — a predicate the Board assumes but does not verify. If the disclosures were not made, the deontological analysis would yield a violation finding even if the consequentialist analysis (no actual harm, no information leakage) would not.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the cumulative outcome of Engineer A's sequential engagements is net positive for the integrity of the engineering expert witness system, but only conditionally. The positive case rests on three premises: (1) engineers who are genuinely objective can serve opposing parties in unrelated matters without information contamination; (2) permitting such service expands the pool of qualified experts available to all parties; and (3) the adversarial system benefits from experts whose opinions are formed independently of client loyalty. However, the cross-examination episode introduces a countervailing consequentialist consideration: if opposing counsel can routinely exploit prior adverse relationships to undermine expert credibility before lay triers of fact, the net effect may be to deter qualified engineers from accepting multi-party engagements, thereby shrinking the expert pool and disadvantaging parties who cannot retain experts without prior adverse history. The consequentialist calculus therefore favors the Board's permissibility finding but also supports a prophylactic disclosure norm — not as an ethical requirement but as a systemic practice that would reduce the frequency of appearance-of-impropriety attacks and thereby preserve the expert pool benefits that the permissibility rule is designed to generate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's conduct presents a mixed picture that the Board's binary compliance finding does not fully capture. The virtues most relevant to forensic expert practice are integrity (consistency between private judgment and public testimony), impartiality (freedom from client-loyalty bias in forming opinions), and practical wisdom (phronesis — the capacity to navigate complex professional situations with sound judgment). Engineer A's willingness to serve opposing parties in unrelated matters is consistent with impartiality, since it demonstrates that her expert opinions are not permanently aligned with any single client's interests. However, the pattern of sequential engagements across opposing sides involving the same corporate entity raises a virtue ethics question that the Board does not address: does a virtuous forensic expert proactively manage the appearance of her independence, or does she simply rely on the factual correctness of her position? Practical wisdom would counsel the former — a truly prudent expert would have anticipated the cross-examination vulnerability and addressed it preemptively. The absence of such preemptive management does not constitute a vice, but it reflects a gap in practical wisdom that the virtue ethics framework identifies even where the deontological and consequentialist frameworks find no violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, the categorical distinction between an engineer's role as an objective expert and an attorney's role as an advocate does provide a principled duty-based reason to reject the importation of legal profession side-loyalty norms into engineering ethics, but this rejection is not absolute. The attorney's duty of loyalty to a client is constitutive of the adversarial system's design: the attorney is expected to be a partisan advocate, and side-switching would corrupt the very function the attorney is meant to perform. The engineer expert witness, by contrast, is expected to be an objective truth-teller whose opinions are formed independently of client preference. The duty structure is therefore fundamentally different: the attorney's loyalty duty is role-constitutive, while the engineer's objectivity duty is role-constitutive in the opposite direction. Importing attorney side-loyalty norms into engineering ethics would therefore not merely add an obligation — it would contradict the foundational duty that defines the engineer expert's role. However, this categorical rejection does not eliminate all loyalty-adjacent duties for engineers: the faithful agent standard, the confidentiality obligation, and the non-deployment of insider knowledge all impose duties that are analogous in structure, if not in scope, to attorney loyalty duties. The Board correctly rejects the wholesale importation of attorney norms while implicitly preserving these engineering-specific analogues.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q401, if Engineer A had failed to proactively disclose her prior relationship with ABC Manufacturing when retained by Attorney X, that omission would not automatically convert the engagement into an actual conflict of interest under the NSPE Code, but it would have constituted a separate and independent violation of the faithful agent standard's disclosure component. The distinction is important: an actual conflict of interest arises when an engineer's ability to serve a client with undivided loyalty is materially compromised by a competing obligation or interest. The failure to disclose a prior relationship does not itself create such a compromise — the compromise either exists or does not exist based on the underlying facts of informational overlap and loyalty division. However, the failure to disclose would violate the transparency dimension of the faithful agent duty, which requires that clients be positioned to make informed retention decisions. The ethical violation in that scenario would be the non-disclosure itself, not the acceptance of the adverse engagement. This means the Board's permissibility finding is conditional on adequate disclosure having occurred, and the absence of disclosure would yield a violation finding on a different ground than conflict of interest — specifically, a breach of the faithful agent's transparency obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q402, if the product liability matter had involved technical subject matter substantially overlapping with the earlier patent litigation in which Engineer A served ABC Manufacturing, the unrelated-matter permissibility principle would not have shielded Engineer A from an ethical violation. The entire analytical foundation of the Board's permissibility finding rests on the factual premise that the three engagements were genuinely unrelated — not merely that they bore different legal labels. If the product liability matter implicated the same technical processes, manufacturing methods, or engineering design questions that Engineer A had analyzed during the patent litigation, then the informational boundary between the matters would have collapsed, and Engineer A would have been in possession of confidential ABC Manufacturing technical knowledge directly relevant to the adverse engagement. In that scenario, the faithful agent standard's confidentiality component would have been violated regardless of whether Engineer A consciously deployed the insider knowledge, because the structural risk of inadvertent deployment would have been non-trivial and foreseeable. This counterfactual reveals that the Board's 'unrelated matter' criterion is doing substantial analytical work that the opinion does not fully unpack: the criterion must be understood as requiring not merely legal claim unrelatedness but technical subject matter unrelatedness sufficient to ensure genuine informational separation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q403, if Engineer A had declined the second ABC Manufacturing retention after having served against ABC Manufacturing in the product liability matter, such a refusal would have been ethically unnecessary but potentially prudent as a matter of professional judgment. The Board's finding that no absolute loyalty obligation persists to former clients in unrelated matters applies symmetrically to both directions of the sequential engagement: just as Engineer A was permitted to serve against ABC Manufacturing after having previously served for it, she was equally permitted to serve for ABC Manufacturing again after having served against it. A refusal would therefore have been an exercise of individual professional judgment — perhaps motivated by a desire to avoid further cross-examination vulnerability — but not an ethical requirement. The Board's analysis implicitly supports this conclusion by rejecting categorical prohibitions on multi-party forensic engagement. However, the virtue ethics framework suggests that a prudent expert might have weighed the cumulative reputational risk of the three-engagement pattern and concluded that declining the second ABC Manufacturing retention was the wiser course, even if not the ethically mandated one. The distinction between ethical obligation and professional prudence is one the Board's binary compliance framework does not fully illuminate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q404, if opposing counsel's cross-examination had succeeded in persuading the trier of fact that Engineer A's sequential engagements demonstrated bias rather than independence, the resulting reputational and evidentiary harm would have created a strong systemic argument for a prophylactic disclosure standard, but such a standard would need to be carefully designed to avoid subordinating individual engineering judgment to a categorical rule. The NSPE Board would have been justified in recommending — though not necessarily mandating — that engineers with multi-party engagement histories involving the same corporate entity affirmatively disclose that history in their expert reports, thereby reducing the cross-examination ambush risk and preserving the credibility of the engineering expert witness function. However, a mandatory recusal standard in the absence of an actual conflict would be inconsistent with the Board's core finding that appearance of impropriety is not equivalent to actual conflict, and would effectively import the attorney side-loyalty norm that the Board correctly rejects. The appropriate institutional response to the systemic risk identified in this counterfactual is therefore a best-practice disclosure guideline rather than a mandatory recusal rule — a distinction that preserves individual engineering judgment autonomy while addressing the legitimate public trust concern that the cross-examination episode illustrates.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between the faithful agent standard and the non-absolute loyalty principle by treating them as operating on different temporal and relational planes rather than as genuinely competing obligations. The faithful agent duty under Section II.4 was interpreted as fully dischargeable within the scope of each discrete engagement: once Engineer A completed her work for ABC Manufacturing in the first patent litigation and was paid, her faithful agent obligation was satisfied and extinguished with respect to that matter. The non-absolute loyalty principle then governed what obligations, if any, persisted afterward. By treating the faithful agent standard as engagement-scoped rather than relationship-scoped, the Board avoided a direct collision between the two principles. The practical teaching of this resolution is that the NSPE Code does not treat prior client relationships as generating perpetual trust obligations that survive into unrelated future matters — the faithful agent duty is a transactional rather than a relational commitment. This interpretation preserves engineer professional autonomy but leaves open the harder question of whether the faithful agent standard, read more expansively, might impose at minimum a proactive disclosure obligation before accepting adverse engagements involving former clients, even in unrelated matters.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Board implicitly resolved the tension between engineer non-advocate objectivity and multi-party forensic engagement disclosure obligations by treating disclosure as the mechanism that reconciles rather than undermines objectivity. The case establishes that Engineer A's objectivity was not compromised by her sequential engagements because she disclosed her prior relationships proactively to each successive retaining party. This synthesis reveals a hierarchical principle structure: objectivity is the foundational value, disclosure is the procedural instrument that preserves it, and the appearance of impropriety raised during cross-examination is treated as an adversarial artifact rather than evidence of actual compromise. Critically, the Board's analysis implies that robust disclosure to retaining parties satisfies the engineer's ethical obligations even when that same disclosure history later becomes a weapon in opposing counsel's hands at trial. The tension identified in Q202 — that disclosure of prior adverse relationships could itself undermine the appearance of objectivity — is resolved in favor of transparency: the engineer's duty runs to the retaining parties and to the integrity of the engineering process, not to the management of jury perception. This prioritization teaches that appearance-based concerns generated by adversarial cross-examination do not elevate into independent ethical obligations requiring prophylactic recusal or preemptive report disclosures.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Board's rejection of the legal profession advocacy analogy as applied to Engineer A reflects a principled but underexamined resolution of the tension between the inapplicability of attorney side-loyalty norms and the reality that conflict of interest disclosure standards have evolved over time, potentially in dialogue with legal ethics developments. By categorically distinguishing the engineer's role as an objective expert from the attorney's role as an advocate, the Board insulates engineering ethics from the stricter side-loyalty prohibitions that govern lawyers. However, this categorical distinction carries an internal tension: the very adversarial context in which forensic engineers operate — retained by parties, cross-examined by opposing counsel, evaluated by triers of fact — is structurally identical to the context that generates attorney loyalty obligations. The Board's resolution prioritizes the functional character of the engineer's role (objective analysis) over the structural character of the context (adversarial proceeding), concluding that function determines ethical obligation rather than context. This principle prioritization teaches that engineering ethics resists contextual contamination from adjacent professional norms, but it also means that the NSPE framework may be slower to develop prophylactic conflict standards than legal ethics, leaving forensic engineers exposed to appearance-of-impropriety challenges that the legal profession would resolve through categorical recusal rules. The long-term coherence of this position depends on whether the engineering profession's disclosure norms continue to evolve independently or whether adversarial context eventually forces convergence with legal ethics standards.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.186792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligation Engineer A Prior Relationship Disclosure to Attorney X and ABC Manufacturing
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureSupersessionofAbsoluteAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The evolved code standard required Engineer A to disclose known or potential conflicts rather than avoid all conflict situations; this disclosure obligation governed her conduct across all three sequential engagements.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the evolved disclosure-based conflict standard to promptly disclose her prior professional relationships — including her prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation — to each new retaining party (Attorney X and subsequently ABC Manufacturing again) at or before accepting each new engagement, rather than being required to avoid the engagements altogether.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics evolved conflict disclosure provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
temporalscope: At or before acceptance of each new forensic engagement
textreferences: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
textreferences: the Board has noted on at least one previous occasion, one of the most common ethical issues that face engineers in their professional lives is the issue of conflicts of interest.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Cross-examination by opposing counsel during Engagement 3 trial proceedings
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: during cross-examination at trial, opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing
from entity text: Cross-examination by opposing counsel
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engagement 3 trial proceedings
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engagement 3 trial proceedings
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A accept the adverse plaintiff retention against former client ABC Manufacturing in the unrelated product liability matter, and on what ethical basis?
focus: After having served ABC Manufacturing as an expert witness in patent litigation, Engineer A is approached by Attorney X to serve as an expert witness against ABC Manufacturing in an entirely unrelated product liability matter. Engineer A must decide whether accepting this adverse engagement is ethically permissible and, if so, how to proceed.
option1: Accept Attorney X's retention in the product liability matter, proactively disclosing to Attorney X — before or at the moment of acceptance — that Engineer A previously served ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation, asserting that the matters are entirely unrelated and no confidential information from the prior engagement is implicated, thereby satisfying the evolved disclosure-based conflict standard.
option2: Decline Attorney X's retention on the basis that serving against a former client in any matter — regardless of relatedness — creates an impermissible conflict of interest or violates a perpetual duty of loyalty owed to ABC Manufacturing as a former client, applying the older categorical avoidance standard rather than the evolved disclosure-based standard.
option3: Accept Attorney X's retention without proactively disclosing the prior ABC Manufacturing relationship, proceeding on the assumption that the unrelated nature of the matters renders disclosure unnecessary, thereby risking a violation of the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure obligation and exposing Engineer A to the appearance-of-impropriety challenge raised during cross-examination.
role label: Engineer A — Forensic Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Is Engineer A obligated to proactively disclose her intervening adverse engagement against ABC Manufacturing to ABC Manufacturing before accepting re-retention, and what does adequate disclosure require?
focus: Before accepting the second patent litigation engagement from ABC Manufacturing — which follows Engineer A's intervening service as an adverse expert for Attorney X against ABC Manufacturing — Engineer A must decide whether and how to disclose her complete prior service history, including the adverse product liability engagement, to ABC Manufacturing so that ABC can make a fully informed retention decision.
option1: Before accepting the second patent litigation retention, affirmatively inform ABC Manufacturing that Engineer A served as an expert witness against ABC Manufacturing in the intervening product liability matter retained by Attorney X, providing sufficient detail for ABC Manufacturing to make an informed retention decision with full awareness of the complete service history.
option2: Accept the second retention without volunteering information about the adverse intervening engagement, on the assumption that ABC Manufacturing is aware of the product liability litigation and has implicitly consented to re-retention by extending the offer, thereby treating ABC Manufacturing's silence as informed acquiescence rather than a gap in disclosure.
option3: Disclose the adverse intervening engagement to ABC Manufacturing in writing and require explicit written acknowledgment and consent before proceeding with the second retention, going beyond the minimum disclosure obligation to create a documented record that ABC Manufacturing accepted re-retention with full knowledge of Engineer A's prior adverse service.
role label: Engineer A — Forensic Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: How should Engineer A respond to opposing counsel's cross-examination challenge that frames her multi-party engagement history as improper side-switching analogous to attorney advocacy norms?
focus: During cross-examination in the product liability matter, opposing counsel challenges Engineer A's credibility and professional integrity by implying that her sequential service to ABC Manufacturing and then against ABC Manufacturing constitutes improper side-switching analogous to an attorney changing sides — importing legal profession advocacy norms into the engineering ethics context. Engineer A must decide how to respond to this challenge while maintaining professional independence and objectivity.
option1: Affirmatively and clearly assert that engineers serving as expert witnesses are not advocates, that no engineering equivalent of the plaintiff's bar or defense bar exists or should constrain professional independence, that each engagement was in an entirely unrelated matter, and that the switching-sides prohibition applicable to attorneys does not govern engineers rendering objective technical opinions — directly rebutting the legal profession analogy without capitulating to the implication of impropriety.
option2: Acknowledge that the sequential engagement history creates an appearance of impropriety, concede that reasonable persons might perceive a conflict, and defer to the court's judgment about the weight to be given her testimony — effectively validating opposing counsel's framing and undermining the ethical permissibility of her engagements by treating appearance of conflict as equivalent to actual conflict.
option3: Prior to cross-examination, proactively prepare and submit a written disclosure statement to the court and all parties documenting the complete multi-party engagement history, the unrelated nature of each matter, and the absence of shared confidential information — addressing the appearance-of-impropriety risk before opposing counsel can exploit it, rather than waiting to respond reactively under cross-examination.
role label: Engineer A — Forensic Expert Witness Under Cross-Examination
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Before accepting the adverse product liability engagement, must Engineer A conduct and document a substantive assessment of whether confidential information from the prior ABC Manufacturing patent litigation engagement could be deployed against ABC Manufacturing's interests, and what must she do if such information is potentially implicated?
focus: Engineer A must assess whether the confidential or proprietary information she acquired about ABC Manufacturing's technical processes and litigation strategy during the first patent litigation engagement could be implicated in — or provide an unfair advantage in — the subsequent adverse product liability engagement, and must determine what safeguards, if any, are required before proceeding.
option1: Before accepting Attorney X's retention, systematically identify and document all technical, strategic, and proprietary information acquired during the ABC Manufacturing patent litigation engagement, assess whether any such information is relevant to or could provide an advantage in the product liability matter, and condition acceptance on a determination that no such information is implicated — disclosing the audit process and conclusions to Attorney X as part of the proactive disclosure obligation.
option2: Accept the retention on the basis that the patent litigation and product liability matters are facially unrelated in subject matter, without conducting a formal audit of potentially overlapping confidential information, relying on the general principle that unrelated matters do not trigger the former-client consent prerequisite — accepting the risk that unanticipated informational overlap may later be identified and challenged.
option3: Contact ABC Manufacturing prior to accepting Attorney X's retention, disclose the nature of the proposed adverse engagement, and seek ABC Manufacturing's explicit informed consent — treating the former-client relationship as sufficient to trigger the consent prerequisite regardless of the unrelatedness of the matters, thereby applying a more conservative standard than the NSPE Code strictly requires but eliminating the risk of confidential information challenge.
role label: Engineer A — Forensic Expert Witness
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the NSPE Board apply the categorical conflict-avoidance standard or the evolved disclosure-based standard when evaluating Engineer A's sequential adverse engagements, and does the appearance of impropriety alone constitute a code violation?
focus: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review must determine the appropriate institutional standard to apply when evaluating Engineer A's sequential multi-party engagement history — specifically, whether to apply the older categorical conflict-avoidance standard that would prohibit adverse engagements against former clients, or the evolved disclosure-based standard that permits such engagements in unrelated matters provided proactive disclosure is made, and whether the appearance of impropriety alone is sufficient to constitute a code violation.
option1: Apply the profession's evolved disclosure-based conflict-of-interest standard, find that Engineer A's sequential engagements in unrelated matters with proactive disclosure did not constitute an actual conflict under the NSPE Code, and explicitly hold that the appearance of impropriety — while a prudential concern — does not by itself constitute a code violation, thereby preserving individual engineering judgment autonomy and rejecting categorical prohibitions on adverse former-client engagements in unrelated matters.
option2: Apply the older categorical conflict-avoidance standard, find that any adverse engagement against a former client — regardless of subject matter unrelatedness — constitutes a prohibited conflict of interest requiring the former client's consent or outright declination, and hold that Engineer A's acceptance of the Attorney X retention without ABC Manufacturing's consent violated the NSPE Code.
option3: Apply the evolved disclosure-based standard and find no actual code violation, but additionally hold that the appearance of impropriety created by sequential adverse engagements imposes an independent prudential obligation on engineers to proactively address and document the unrelatedness of matters and absence of confidential information overlap before accepting adverse former-client retentions — creating a heightened procedural standard that goes beyond mere disclosure to require affirmative preemptive documentation.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Earlier era of 'avoid all conflicts' ethics codes before Later era of 'disclose conflicts' ethics codes
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics... specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest... However, over time, the engineering profession came to the general conclusion... codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest
from entity text: Earlier era of 'avoid all conflicts' ethics codes
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Later era of 'disclose conflicts' ethics codes
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Later era of disclose conflicts ethics codes
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engagement 1 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, patent litigation review) before Engagement 2 (Engineer A retained by Attorney X, product liability against ABC Manufacturing)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing... Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing
from entity text: Engagement 1 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, patent litigation review)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engagement 2 (Engineer A retained by Attorney X, product liability against ABC Manufacturing)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engagement 2 Engineer A retained by Attorney X p
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engagement 1 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, patent litigation review) before Engagement 3 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, second patent litigation matter)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing... Several years later [x2]... Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the preceding events
from entity text: Engagement 1 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, patent litigation review)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engagement 3 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, second patent litigation matter)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engagement 3 Engineer A retained by ABC Manufactu
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engagement 1 work (patent litigation review) before Engagement 2 work (product liability matter)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
from entity text: Engagement 1 work (patent litigation review)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engagement 2 work (product liability matter)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engagement 2 work product liability matter
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engagement 2 (Engineer A retained by Attorney X, product liability against ABC Manufacturing) before Engagement 3 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, second patent litigation matter)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X... Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter
from entity text: Engagement 2 (Engineer A retained by Attorney X, product liability against ABC Manufacturing)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engagement 3 (Engineer A retained by ABC Manufacturing, second patent litigation matter)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engagement 3 Engineer A retained by ABC Manufactu
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Attorney Advocacy Norm Imputation Resistance Cross-Examination
type: AttorneyAdvocacyNormParallelImputationResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Opposing counsel's cross-examination implied impropriety based on Engineer A's sequential service on opposing sides — Engineer A was constrained to affirmatively assert and maintain her professional independence rather than acquiescing to the false attorney-engineer parallel.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Attorney Advocacy Norm Parallel Imputation Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: During cross-examination, Engineer A was required to affirmatively resist and correct opposing counsel's implication that her sequential service on opposing sides of ABC Manufacturing litigation was improper — asserting that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not bound by side-loyalty professional conduct rules, and that her duty in each engagement was to provide objective technical expertise to the trier of fact rather than advocacy for the retaining party.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code professional independence provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
temporalscope: During cross-examination at trial in the second ABC Manufacturing patent litigation
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.480245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Appearance vs Actual Conflict Discrimination in Multi-Party Litigation
type: ConflictofInterestAppearancevs.ActualConflictDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Appearance vs. Actual Conflict Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that her multi-party litigation service history created an appearance of conflict that did not rise to the level of an actual prohibited conflict of interest under the NSPE Code of Ethics
casecontext: Engineer A served ABC Manufacturing twice in patent litigation and then accepted retention by Attorney X in an unrelated product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing; opposing counsel implied impropriety
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Accepting the Attorney X retention against ABC Manufacturing in an unrelated product liability matter despite prior service to ABC Manufacturing, correctly assessing that appearance of conflict does not equal actual conflict
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.483562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Code Evolution Historical Awareness in Multi-Party Litigation Context
type: ConflictofInterestEvolutionStandardComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated awareness of the evolved conflict-of-interest standard — from absolute avoidance to disclosure-based management — and applied the current standard by disclosing her prior relationships to retaining parties rather than categorically declining the engagement
casecontext: Engineer A's management of her multi-party litigation service history under the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Proactively disclosing prior relationships to Attorney X and ABC Manufacturing rather than applying the superseded absolute avoidance standard
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As a result, codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
textreferences: As a result, codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
textreferences: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.485095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Independence in Adversarial Context
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateExpertIndependenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's forensic expert engagements in adversarial proceedings
affectedparties: Courts
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Opposing parties
affectedparties: Retaining parties
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services
stateclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
subject: Engineer A's role as expert in adversarial legal proceedings while maintaining engineering objectivity
terminatedby: Conclusion of adversarial proceedings
textreferences: engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations
textreferences: they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy
textreferences: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services
triggeringevent: Engineer A's engagement as expert witness/consultant in adversarial legal matters involving former clients' opponents
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.475098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Non-Advocate Independence Maintenance Across Three Engagements
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's sequential service on opposing sides of ABC Manufacturing litigation raised the question of whether her independence had been compromised — the non-advocate constraint required that each engagement be conducted with full objectivity regardless of which side retained her.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to maintain full objectivity and non-advocate status in each of her three separate engagements — twice for ABC Manufacturing and once for the plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing — prohibiting her from allowing the retaining party's adversarial interests to shape her technical opinions, and requiring that her expert services in each matter be grounded in independent professional judgment rather than advocacy for the retaining party.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code professional independence provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
temporalscope: Throughout all three sequential engagements
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.480046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A First ABC Manufacturing Patent Litigation Retention
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial retention by ABC Manufacturing through completion of first patent litigation services
affectedparties: ABC Manufacturing
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's professional relationship with ABC Manufacturing in first patent litigation matter
terminatedby: Completion of services and payment for first patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A performed the requested services and was paid for her work by ABC Manufacturing
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise
triggeringevent: ABC Manufacturing retaining Engineer A to review documents and form an opinion in patent litigation
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.471588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Side-Switching Non-Application Assessment Unrelated Product Liability
type: ForensicExpertSide-SwitchingConflictAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly assess that the side-switching prohibition did NOT apply to her acceptance of the product liability engagement because the matter was wholly unrelated to the prior patent litigation in which she served ABC Manufacturing — no same-matter side-switching occurred.
casecontext: Engineer A evaluated whether her prior patent litigation service for ABC Manufacturing triggered the side-switching prohibition when she was retained adverse to ABC Manufacturing in an unrelated product liability matter
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Correct determination that accepting Attorney X's retention in an unrelated product liability matter did not constitute impermissible side-switching against former client ABC Manufacturing
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.478695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintained Across ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X Engagements
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to maintain full objectivity and non-advocate status in each of her three separate forensic engagements — twice for ABC Manufacturing and once for Attorney X — rendering opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment independent of each retaining party's litigation interests.
casecontext: Engineer A served as forensic expert across three sequential engagements involving two parties who were adverse to each other, requiring sustained objectivity independent of each retaining party's interests
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Performance of requested services across three separate engagements for two different retaining parties with overlapping adverse relationships
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A performed the requested services and was paid for her work by ABC Manufacturing.
textreferences: Engineer A again performed the requested services and was paid for her work.
textreferences: Engineer A performed the requested services and was paid for her work by ABC Manufacturing.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.478546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Across ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X Engagements
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A maintained forensic expert witness objectivity across all three engagements — twice for ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation and once for Attorney X in product liability — rendering technically grounded opinions independent of each retaining party's litigation interests
casecontext: Engineer A's three separate forensic expert engagements across two clients in unrelated litigation matters
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Serving as an objective expert for both ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X in separate, unrelated matters without compromising technical independence in favor of either retaining party
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
textreferences: While all engineers must make professional decisions based upon a variety of considerations and factors, engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations.
textreferences: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.485233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement Decision
type: IndividualEngineeringJudgmentAutonomyPreservationAgainstCategoricalProhibitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation Against Categorical Prohibition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to exercise individualized professional judgment in deciding to accept the Attorney X engagement, recognizing that categorical prohibitions on adverse engagement against former clients in unrelated matters would improperly constrain professional autonomy
casecontext: Engineer A's decision-making process in accepting the product liability engagement adverse to ABC Manufacturing, her former client
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Making an individualized, multi-factor assessment of the permissibility of the Attorney X engagement rather than applying a categorical rule against adverse engagement with former clients
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise.
textreferences: For a variety of reasons, some engineers might choose to decline an engagement that could place the engineer in a position adverse to the interests of a former client, even though the engagement is not in any way related to the engineer's earlier services to the client.
textreferences: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise.
textreferences: While all engineers must make professional decisions based upon a variety of considerations and factors, engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.484821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Insider Knowledge Non-Deployment ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
type: InsiderKnowledgeNon-DeploymentAgainstFormerClientConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's prior access to ABC Manufacturing's confidential information in the patent litigation created a residual constraint on how she could deploy that knowledge when subsequently retained by opposing counsel, even in an unrelated matter.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Insider Knowledge Non-Deployment Against Former Client Constraint
constraintstatement: When serving as expert for Attorney X in the product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing, Engineer A was prohibited from deploying any specialized insider knowledge — including confidential technical information, analytical assumptions, data gaps, or strategic vulnerabilities — gained during her prior patent litigation service to ABC Manufacturing, even though the product liability matter was substantively unrelated to the patent matter.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code conflict of interest and faithful agent provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: Throughout the product liability engagement for Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.480394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Legal Profession Advocacy Bar Analogy Rejection in Cross-Examination
type: LegalProfessionAdvocacyBarAnalogyRejectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Legal Profession Advocacy Bar Analogy Rejection Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize and resist opposing counsel's attempt to analogize her forensic expert role to the institutionalized plaintiff's bar/defense bar structure of the legal profession, asserting that engineers are not advocates and should not be expected to align permanently with one side of adversarial proceedings
casecontext: Cross-examination by opposing counsel in the product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing, where counsel implied Engineer A acted improperly by serving both sides
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Maintaining professional independence during cross-examination when opposing counsel implied impropriety by drawing a parallel between engineering and legal advocacy roles
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
textreferences: However, while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
textreferences: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.483849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Party Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to ABC Manufacturing Second Retention
type: Multi-PartyForensicPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Party Forensic Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to proactively disclose to ABC Manufacturing, prior to or at the time of accepting the second patent litigation engagement, that she had previously served as an expert adverse to ABC Manufacturing in the product liability matter retained by Attorney X.
casecontext: Engineer A was re-retained by ABC Manufacturing for a second patent litigation matter after having served adverse to ABC Manufacturing in the intervening product liability matter
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to disclose prior adverse product liability service to ABC Manufacturing before accepting re-retention in the second patent litigation matter
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
textreferences: Engineer A again performed the requested services and was paid for her work.
textreferences: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.477955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Party Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
type: Multi-PartyForensicPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Party Forensic Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to proactively disclose to Attorney X, prior to or at the time of accepting the product liability engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation.
casecontext: Engineer A accepted retention by Attorney X in a matter adverse to her former client ABC Manufacturing and was obligated to disclose the prior relationship proactively
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to disclose prior ABC Manufacturing patent litigation service to Attorney X before accepting the adverse product liability engagement
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.477776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
type: Non-AbsoluteFormerClientLoyaltyPerpetuityProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's sequential service on opposing sides of ABC Manufacturing litigation across unrelated matters required assessment of whether former client loyalty obligations created a perpetual bar to adverse engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Perpetuity Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation did not create a perpetual duty of loyalty prohibiting her from accepting retention by opposing counsel in the unrelated product liability matter — the non-absolute loyalty constraint established that the faithful agent duty does not extend to barring all future adverse engagements, only those involving the same or related subject matter where confidential knowledge could be deployed.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter.
temporalscope: Throughout the period following completion of the first ABC Manufacturing patent litigation engagement
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter.
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.479148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Perpetual Loyal Devotion Non-Extension to ABC Manufacturing Recognition
type: PerpetualLoyalDevotionNon-ExtensiontoFormerClientRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Perpetual Loyal Devotion Non-Extension to Former Client Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that her faithful agent and trustee obligations to ABC Manufacturing during the two prior patent litigation engagements did not create a perpetual absolute loyalty bar preventing her from accepting an adverse engagement in an unrelated product liability matter
casecontext: Engineer A's decision to accept retention by Attorney X in a product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing, her former client in two unrelated patent litigation matters
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Accepting the Attorney X retention against ABC Manufacturing in the product liability matter, correctly assessing that prior faithful agent status does not create perpetual absolute loyalty
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.484117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Duty of Trust Duration Assessment ABC Manufacturing
type: Post-EmploymentDutyofTrustandLoyaltyDurationIndeterminacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The 'several years' temporal gap between Engineer A's first ABC Manufacturing engagement and her subsequent adverse engagement raised the question of whether the duty of trust had sufficiently attenuated — the indeterminacy constraint required fact-specific assessment rather than automatic discharge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Employment Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Indeterminacy Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to ABC Manufacturing following the first patent litigation engagement persisted for an indeterminate period — the mere passage of 'several years' between the first patent engagement and the product liability engagement did not automatically discharge the residual duty, requiring Engineer A to assess the continuing vitality of that duty in light of the specific facts, including the unrelated subject matter of the new engagement.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code faithful agent provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: From completion of first ABC Manufacturing patent engagement through subsequent engagements
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.480560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Second ABC Manufacturing Retention Unrelated Matter Permissibility
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseForensicEngagementPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After serving as expert against ABC Manufacturing in product liability litigation, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a new patent matter, raising the question of whether prior service against ABC Manufacturing barred re-engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's acceptance of the second retention by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter was ethically permissible only because that matter was unrelated to both the prior patent litigation and the product liability matter — the permissibility boundary required that no confidential information from the product liability engagement (in which Engineer A had served the opposing side) was relevant to or deployable in the new patent matter.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the second retention by ABC Manufacturing
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.479000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assessment ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseForensicEngagementPermissibilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly assess that her acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible because the matter was wholly unrelated to her prior patent litigation service for ABC Manufacturing.
casecontext: Engineer A had previously served ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation and was then retained by opposing counsel in an unrelated product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the Attorney X retention in the product liability matter and subsequent defense of that acceptance under cross-examination at trial
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:23.397752+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.476472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Unrelated Matter Product Liability Adverse Engagement Permissibility
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseForensicEngagementPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A served ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation, then was retained by opposing counsel in an unrelated product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing, raising the question of whether this constituted an impermissible switching of sides.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible only because that matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation in which Engineer A had served ABC Manufacturing — the permissibility boundary required that no confidential information or specialized knowledge from the prior engagement was relevant to or deployable in the product liability matter.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.478841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Maintenance Engineer A Sequential Adversarial Engagements
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's ability to serve sequentially on opposing sides of unrelated matters was premised on her maintaining non-advocate expert independence in each engagement; the engineering profession's distinction from the legal advocacy model was central to the Board's permissibility finding.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained throughout all three engagements — two for ABC Manufacturing and one for plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing — to maintain full professional independence and objectivity as an expert witness, and was prohibited from adopting an advocate role aligned with any retaining party's adversarial interests.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics professional independence provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
temporalscope: Throughout all three forensic engineering engagements
textreferences: While all engineers must make professional decisions based upon a variety of considerations and factors, engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations.
textreferences: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer Professional Autonomy Categorical Prohibition Non-Imposition Engineer A Adverse Engagement Decision
type: EngineerProfessionalAutonomyCategoricalProhibitionNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board acknowledged that some engineers might personally choose to decline adverse engagements involving former clients even in unrelated matters, but declined to elevate that personal choice into a mandatory Code requirement, preserving individual engineer discretion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: Engineer Professional Autonomy Categorical Prohibition Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained from issuing a categorical rule that any engineer accepting an engagement adverse to a former client in an unrelated matter violates the NSPE Code of Ethics, because such a categorical prohibition would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: However, the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
temporalscope: At time of BER deliberation on Engineer A's case
textreferences: However, the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Such an approach would be impractical and compromise the autonomy and professional independence of engineers.
textreferences: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.485688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineering Profession Shifts Conflict Standard
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Bodies and Code-Setting Authorities, including NSPE
foreseen unintended effects: Potential for engineers to rationalize acceptance of engagements that create genuine conflicts under a disclosure framework
foreseen unintended effects: Reduced clarity about what constitutes a prohibited conflict, requiring more individual judgment
foreseen unintended effects: Shift in professional image from one of strict conflict avoidance to one of managed conflict disclosure
fulfills obligation text: Practical workability of professional ethics standards
fulfills obligation text: Preservation of engineer professional autonomy and independence
fulfills obligation text: Protection of clients through transparency and disclosure rather than rigid exclusion
guided by principle text: Pragmatic recognition of the realities of engineering practice
guided by principle text: Professional autonomy and independence
guided by principle text: Protection of public and client interests through informed consent rather than blanket prohibition
guided by principle text: Transparency and disclosure as the mechanism for managing conflicts
has agent: Engineering Profession Collectively
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Create a more practical and workable ethical standard that preserves engineer autonomy and independence while still protecting clients and the public through transparency and disclosure
requires capability text: Analysis of practical realities of engineering practice across diverse contexts
requires capability text: Balancing of competing ethical principles at the profession-wide level
requires capability text: Code drafting and promulgation authority
requires capability text: Collective professional deliberation and ethics standard-setting
temporal marker: Historical; occurred at an unspecified point prior to the events in the case
temporal sequence: 1
violates obligation text: Prior commitment to absolute avoidance of all conflicts of interest
violates obligation text: Strict protection of professional image by eliminating any appearance of impropriety
within competence: true
comment: The engineering profession collectively decided to revise ethics codes to replace the requirement to avoid all conflicts of interest with a requirement to disclose known or potential conflicts of interest, acknowledging that conflicts are a practical inevitability in engineering practice.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineering Profession Shifts Conflict Standard → No Violation Finding Issued
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The historical shift in engineering ethics codes, from stricter loyalty-based conflict standards to disclosure-based standards, provided the normative framework within which the NSPE Board evaluated Engineer A's conduct and formally concluded that no ethical violation had been committed.
cause: Engineering Profession Shifts Conflict Standard
counterfactual: Had the profession retained the stricter loyalty-based conflict standard, Engineer A's sequential adverse engagements would likely have constituted a clear violation, and the Board's finding would have been different
effect: No Violation Finding Issued
necessary factors: Engineer A's conduct being evaluated against the current rather than historical standard
necessary factors: The profession's collective decision to revise ethics codes replacing prohibition with disclosure requirements
necessary factors: The revised standard being in effect at the time of the NSPE Board's deliberation
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineering Profession Collectively (NSPE and member organizations); NSPE Board of Ethical Review (applying the standard)
sufficient factors: Revised disclosure-based ethics standard + Engineer A's conduct not violating disclosure requirements = sufficient basis for no-violation finding
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Ethics Code Evolution Recognized
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Applicable_Code_Version_Determination_Constraint
activates constraint: Retroactive_Standard_Application_Constraint
causes state change: The evaluative framework for assessing Engineer A's conduct shifts from an absolute loyalty model to a matter-specific conflict model; conduct that might have been impermissible under older standards may be permissible under evolved standards
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Adjudicators_Must_Recognize_Historical_Context_Of_Standards
creates obligation: Ethics_Board_Must_Apply_Code_Version_In_Effect_At_Time_Of_Conduct
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Spanning the period of all three engagements; formally recognized in the Discussion section of the ethics opinion
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: low
comment: The historical shift in engineering ethics codes: from stricter loyalty-based conflict standards to more nuanced, matter-specific conflict analysis, is recognized as an established fact contextualizing Engineer A's conduct across her three engagements.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Expert-Witness-Conflict-of-Interest-Disclosure-Standard-ABC-Matter
type: ExpertWitnessConflictofInterestDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from professional ethics precedent)
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
usedby: Engineer A; Attorney X; ABC Manufacturing's counsel
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to disclose prior professional relationships with ABC Manufacturing to retaining counsel (both Attorney X and ABC Manufacturing's counsel) before accepting engagements, ensuring all parties are aware of the history of service for and against the same party
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.470485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Former Client 1 Adverse Party
type: FormerClientAdversePartyStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship_status': 'Former client, now adverse party', 'matter_relatedness': 'Unrelated to prior work'}
caseinvolvement: One of two former clients of Engineer A who is now an adverse party in the current litigation matter. The prior engagement was unrelated to the current matter, and the Board found no prohibited conflict of interest arising from Engineer A's prior service.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:38.745170+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:38.745170+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_to', 'target': 'Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney'}
relationships: {'type': 'formerly_retained', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert'}
rolecategory: stakeholder
roleclass: Former Client Adverse Party Stakeholder
sourcetext: the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client
textreferences: the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.473949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Former Client 2 Adverse Party
type: FormerClientAdversePartyStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship_status': 'Former client, now adverse party', 'matter_relatedness': 'Unrelated to prior work'}
caseinvolvement: The second of two former clients of Engineer A who is now an adverse party in the current litigation matter. The prior engagement was unrelated to the current matter.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:38.745170+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:38.745170+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_to', 'target': 'Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney'}
relationships: {'type': 'formerly_retained', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert'}
rolecategory: stakeholder
roleclass: Former Client Adverse Party Stakeholder
sourcetext: the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
textreferences: the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.474092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.183712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Impropriety Implied by Counsel
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Ethics_Code_Compliance_Verification_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Reputation_Defense_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthful_Testimony_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A's professional conduct is now a matter of public record in litigation; her credibility as an expert witness is directly challenged; the ethical propriety of her prior engagement decisions is thrust into scrutiny
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Basis_For_Prior_Engagement_Decisions
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Respond_Truthfully_To_Cross_Examination
creates obligation: Ethics_Board_Review_May_Be_Warranted
creates obligation: Retaining_Counsel_Must_Rehabilitate_Witness_If_Possible
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: During cross-examination in Engagement 3 (third engagement with ABC Manufacturing)
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: During cross-examination in the third engagement, opposing counsel publicly implied that Engineer A had acted improperly by having previously worked both for and against ABC Manufacturing, casting doubt on her professional integrity before the court.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Initial Payment Received
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Confidentiality_Obligation_To_ABC
activates constraint: Prior_Relationship_Disclosure_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from active engagement to post-engagement status with ABC; a professional history record is established; confidentiality obligations persist indefinitely
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Disclose_Prior_Relationship_In_Future_Engagements
creates obligation: Maintain_Confidentiality_Of_ABC_Information
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: End of first engagement (Engagement 1)
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer A received payment from ABC Manufacturing upon completion of the first patent litigation review engagement, formalizing the prior professional relationship and creating a record of service.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Legal Profession Advocacy Norm Non-Importation Engineer A Cross-Examination
type: LegalProfessionAdvocacyNormEngineeringNon-ImportationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Opposing counsel attempted to imply impropriety by suggesting Engineer A's sequential service on opposing sides mirrored an attorney switching sides, invoking the institutionalized plaintiff's/defense bar distinction; the Board rejected this analogy as inapplicable to engineering expert witnesses.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Opposing Counsel; Engineer A
constraintclass: Legal Profession Advocacy Norm Engineering Non-Importation Constraint
constraintstatement: Opposing counsel was constrained from successfully imputing attorney-style side-loyalty obligations to Engineer A by drawing a parallel between the institutionalized plaintiff's bar/defense bar structure of the legal profession and engineering expert witness practice; Engineer A was not bound by attorney advocacy norms and could not be required to conform to them.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers professional independence provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
temporalscope: During cross-examination of Engineer A in product liability litigation
textreferences: However, while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
textreferences: In this connection, the Board is also concerned by the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly
textreferences: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.485836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Expert-Witness-Obligations
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
usedby: Engineer A; NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Primary normative authority for evaluating whether Engineer A's sequential service as expert witness for and against ABC Manufacturing in unrelated matters constitutes improper conduct; grounds analysis of objectivity, independence, and conflict of interest obligations
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.470199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE BER Conflict of Interest Appearance vs Actual Conflict Institutional Discrimination in Engineer A Case
type: ConflictofInterestAppearancevs.ActualConflictDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Appearance vs. Actual Conflict Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the capability to distinguish between the appearance of a conflict of interest and an actual prohibited conflict, concluding that Engineer A's multi-party service history created only an appearance that did not constitute a code violation
casecontext: BER review of Engineer A's acceptance of adverse forensic engagement against former client ABC Manufacturing in unrelated product liability matter
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Formal BER ruling that Engineer A's conduct did not rise to the level of a prohibited conflict of interest despite the appearance of impropriety raised by opposing counsel
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
textreferences: In this connection, the Board is also concerned by the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly, with the suggestion that Engineer A's action may have constituted a conflict of interest.
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.483712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE BER Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation Institutional Recognition in Engineer A Case
type: IndividualEngineeringJudgmentAutonomyPreservationAgainstCategoricalProhibitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation Against Categorical Prohibition Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the institutional capability to recognize that imposing a categorical prohibition on adverse engagement against former clients in unrelated matters would undermine individual engineering judgment, independence, and discretion, and declined to impose such a prohibition
casecontext: BER institutional analysis of whether to impose a categorical prohibition on adverse engagement against former clients in unrelated matters
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling expressly declining to find a code violation, stating that doing so 'would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise'
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: However, the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: However, the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.484958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE BER Legal Profession Advocacy Bar Analogy Rejection Institutional Assessment in Engineer A Case
type: LegalProfessionAdvocacyBarAnalogyRejectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Legal Profession Advocacy Bar Analogy Rejection Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the capability to identify and reject opposing counsel's attempt to import the legal profession's plaintiff's bar/defense bar structure into engineering ethics, articulating the fundamental distinction between engineer-as-objective-expert and attorney-as-advocate
casecontext: BER institutional review of the ethical implications of opposing counsel's cross-examination strategy in the Engineer A product liability matter
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: BER analysis expressly noting the attorney's attempt to draw a parallel with the legal profession and rejecting it as inconsistent with engineering professional independence
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
textreferences: However, while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
textreferences: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.483982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE BER Perpetual Loyal Devotion Non-Extension Institutional Recognition in Engineer A Case
type: PerpetualLoyalDevotionNon-ExtensiontoFormerClientRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Perpetual Loyal Devotion Non-Extension to Former Client Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the institutional capability to recognize and articulate that faithful agent and trustee status does not create a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity, and that engineers are not categorically barred from adverse engagement against former clients in unrelated matters
casecontext: BER institutional analysis of the scope of faithful agent obligations in the context of Engineer A's multi-party forensic service history
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling expressly stating that 'Being a faithful agent and trustee to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity' and finding Engineer A's conduct permissible
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:51.964841+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
textreferences: Such an approach would be impractical and compromise the autonomy and professional independence of engineers.
textreferences: While engineers clearly have certain basic professional obligations to their employers and clients to protect their interests, engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.484673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Section II.4
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.4 (Faithful Agent and Trustee)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.)
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations to former clients
usedincontext: Cited to define the scope and limits of an engineer's duty as a 'faithful agent and trustee' to clients, establishing that this duty does not require absolute perpetual loyalty adverse to professional independence
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.472972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution
type: ExpertInterpretation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Engineering professional societies through iterative code revision
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Historical Evolution of Conflict of Interest Standards in Engineering Codes of Ethics
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:35.739780+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Expert Interpretation
sourcetext: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest.
textreferences: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest.
textreferences: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients
textreferences: over time, the engineering profession came to the general conclusion that by the very nature of the role of the engineer in society, conflicts of interests were virtually an immutable fact of professional engineering practice
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to contextualize the current conflict of interest analysis
usedincontext: The Board references the historical shift in engineering codes from requiring avoidance of all conflicts of interest to requiring disclosure of known or potential conflicts — an authoritative expert interpretation of how the profession's collective understanding of conflict of interest obligations has evolved over time
version: Ongoing professional consensus development
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.473510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

No Violation Finding Issued
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Precedent_Setting_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Guidance_Dissemination_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A is formally cleared of ethical wrongdoing; the implied impropriety from cross-examination is officially rebutted; a precedent is established for similar future cases; the matter-specific conflict analysis is validated as the operative standard
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_May_Continue_Expert_Practice_Without_Restriction
creates obligation: Profession_Must_Communicate_Applicable_Conflict_Standards_Clearly
creates obligation: Publish_Ethics_Opinion_For_Professional_Guidance
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Conclusion of NSPE ethics review process (post all three engagements)
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: low
comment: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review formally concluded that Engineer A committed no ethical violation, establishing an authoritative ruling that her sequential engagements for and against ABC Manufacturing were permissible under applicable professional standards.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Engineer A ABC Manufacturing Adverse Product Liability Engagement
type: Non-AbsoluteFormerClientLoyaltyPerpetuityProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had previously served ABC Manufacturing as expert witness in two patent litigation matters; she subsequently accepted retention by Attorney X representing a plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing in an unrelated product liability matter; the Board found no perpetual loyalty obligation barred this engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Perpetuity Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's prior faithful agent obligations to ABC Manufacturing in two patent litigation matters did not create a perpetual duty of absolute loyalty prohibiting her from accepting retention by Attorney X in the unrelated product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing; the faithful agent standard does not obligate absolute devotion in perpetuity.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client.
temporalscope: At time of Engineer A's acceptance of Attorney X retention in product liability matter
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.)
textreferences: Such an approach would be impractical and compromise the autonomy and professional independence of engineers.
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.485999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Payment to Engineer A for services finishes Engagement 1 (ABC Manufacturing, patent litigation review)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: finishes
evidence: Engineer A performed the requested services and was paid for her work by ABC Manufacturing
from entity text: Payment to Engineer A for services
owl time property: time:intervalFinishes
to entity text: Engagement 1 (ABC Manufacturing, patent litigation review)
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 end at the same time, Entity2 starts first
interval finishes: Engagement 1 ABC Manufacturing patent litigation
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Payment to Engineer A for services finishes Engagement 3 (ABC Manufacturing, second patent litigation matter)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: finishes
evidence: Engineer A again performed the requested services and was paid for her work
from entity text: Payment to Engineer A for services
owl time property: time:intervalFinishes
to entity text: Engagement 3 (ABC Manufacturing, second patent litigation matter)
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 end at the same time, Entity2 starts first
interval finishes: Engagement 3 ABC Manufacturing second patent lit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.487390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Prior Relationship Exists at Adverse Retention
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_Of_Interest_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Loyalty_Obligation_Assessment_Constraint
activates constraint: Prior_Confidential_Information_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A now occupies an adversarial position relative to a former client; the 'unrelated matter' characterization becomes ethically load-bearing; the conflict of interest question is activated and must be resolved
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Whether_Prior_Confidential_Info_Is_Relevant
creates obligation: Disclose_Prior_ABC_Relationship_To_Attorney_X
creates obligation: Ensure_New_Work_Is_Genuinely_Unrelated_To_Prior_Work
creates obligation: Obtain_Informed_Consent_Or_Decline_If_Conflict_Exists
emergency status: medium
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Beginning of second engagement (Engagement 2), several years after Engagement 1
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: medium
comment: At the moment Engineer A accepted retention by Attorney X against ABC Manufacturing, a prior professional relationship with ABC Manufacturing already existed as an established fact, creating a potential conflict of interest condition.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide services to the parties in the manner described under the facts?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.183786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: At what point, if any, was Engineer A obligated to proactively disclose her prior relationship with ABC Manufacturing to Attorney X before accepting the adverse plaintiff retention, and what specific information would that disclosure have needed to include to satisfy the NSPE Code's faithful agent standard?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.183869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Did Engineer A have any obligation to disclose to ABC Manufacturing, before accepting the second patent litigation retention, that she had previously provided expert services adverse to ABC Manufacturing in the product liability matter, and would ABC Manufacturing's silence or failure to object constitute implied consent?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.183933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the fact that opposing counsel was able to raise a plausible appearance of impropriety during cross-examination suggest that Engineer A had an independent obligation to preemptively address her multi-party engagement history in her expert report or testimony, even if no actual conflict existed?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.183990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: What confidential or proprietary information about ABC Manufacturing's technical processes or litigation strategy might Engineer A have acquired during the first patent litigation retention, and does the Board's analysis adequately account for the risk that such insider knowledge could have been inadvertently deployed during the adverse product liability engagement?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.184045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle that loyalty to a former client is bounded and non-absolute conflict with the principle that an engineer must act as a faithful agent or trustee, given that the faithful agent standard could be read to impose a continuing duty of trust that survives the termination of a specific engagement?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.184682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle that an engineer's non-advocate objectivity permits engagement across opposing parties in unrelated matters conflict with the principle that multi-party forensic engagement creates disclosure obligations, since robust disclosure of prior adverse relationships could itself undermine the appearance of the very objectivity it is meant to protect?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.184754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle that the switching-sides prohibition does not apply to unrelated matters conflict with the principle that engineer professional autonomy must be preserved against blanket prohibitions, in that the former principle implicitly concedes a domain where side-switching is prohibited, potentially creating a categorical rule that constrains the very autonomy the latter principle seeks to protect?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.184813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle that the legal profession's advocacy norms are inapplicable to engineers conflict with the principle that conflict of interest disclosure obligations have evolved over time, given that the historical evolution of NSPE disclosure standards may itself have been influenced by analogous developments in legal ethics, making the boundary between the two professions' norms less categorical than the Board implies?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.184866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill her duty as a faithful agent and trustee to each successive client by proactively disclosing prior relationships before accepting each new engagement, regardless of whether those matters were factually unrelated?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.184918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the cumulative outcome of Engineer A's sequential engagements across opposing sides produce net benefit to the integrity of the engineering expert witness system, or did the appearance of impropriety raised during cross-examination undermine public trust in forensic engineering services in ways that outweigh the individual permissibility of each engagement?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.184969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of integrity, impartiality, and practical wisdom by accepting engagements on opposing sides of matters involving the same corporate entity across different litigation contexts, and does the pattern of her conduct reflect the character of a trustworthy forensic expert or reveal a disposition toward opportunistic availability?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the categorical distinction between an engineer's role as an objective expert and an attorney's role as an advocate create a principled duty-based reason to reject the importation of legal profession side-loyalty norms into engineering ethics, or does the shared adversarial context impose analogous loyalty duties that Engineer A violated by serving opposing sides involving the same corporate party?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the Board's ethical analysis have changed if Engineer A had failed to proactively disclose her prior relationship with ABC Manufacturing when retained by Attorney X, and would that omission have converted an otherwise permissible sequential engagement into an actual conflict of interest rather than a mere appearance of one?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if the product liability matter in which Attorney X retained Engineer A against ABC Manufacturing had involved technical subject matter substantially overlapping with the earlier patent litigation in which Engineer A had served ABC Manufacturing — would the unrelated-matter permissibility principle have still shielded Engineer A from an ethical violation, or would the deployment of insider knowledge have created an actual conflict?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would the ethical outcome have differed if Engineer A had declined the second ABC Manufacturing retention after having served against ABC Manufacturing in the product liability matter, and would such a refusal have been ethically required, merely prudent, or unnecessarily self-limiting given the Board's finding that no absolute loyalty obligation persists to former clients in unrelated matters?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if opposing counsel's cross-examination had succeeded in persuading the trier of fact that Engineer A's sequential engagements demonstrated bias rather than independence — would the resulting reputational and evidentiary harm to the engineering profession have obligated the NSPE Board to impose a prophylactic disclosure or recusal standard even in the absence of an actual ethical violation, and would such a standard have been consistent with preserving individual engineering judgment autonomy?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.185332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.188075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:21:42.187739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Sequential-Party-Representation-Ethics-Standard-ABC-Pattern
type: SequentialPartyRepresentationEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (inferred from case analysis)
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard (derived from BER analysis)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:17.642767+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
usedby: Engineer A; NSPE Board of Ethical Review; opposing counsel
usedincontext: Directly addresses the novel ethical question of whether an engineer who has served as expert witness for a party (ABC Manufacturing) and later against that same party (on behalf of a plaintiff) and then again for that party acts improperly — specifically whether such sequential, unrelated engagements constitute an appearance of impropriety or a legitimate exercise of independent professional judgment
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.470632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Engineer A Unrelated Product Liability Matter
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The switching-sides bar applies only where the new matter shares subject matter, confidential information, or specialized knowledge from the prior engagement; the factual unrelatedness of the three matters meant the bar was inapplicable to Engineer A's sequential service pattern.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: The switching-sides prohibition did not apply to Engineer A's acceptance of the product liability engagement adverse to ABC Manufacturing because the product liability matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation matters in which Engineer A served ABC Manufacturing, and no confidential information from the prior engagements was relevant to or deployable in the new matter.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.b; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients.
temporalscope: At time of Engineer A's acceptance of Attorney X retention
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Boundary Engineer A ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseFormerClientEngagementPermissibilityBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board's permissibility finding rested on the factual unrelatedness of the three matters and the absence of any confidential information nexus between the prior ABC Manufacturing engagements and the new product liability matter.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Former Client Engagement Permissibility Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing was within the permissible boundary established by the NSPE Code because the product liability matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation matters, and no confidential information from those prior engagements was implicated in the new matter.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:03:59.287189+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients.
temporalscope: At time of Engineer A's acceptance of Attorney X retention in product liability matter
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients.
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.486622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051336+00:00
value: Appearance without actual conflict triggers disclosure obligations but not prohibition; the Board declines to conflate appearance with actuality

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052654+00:00
value: Appearance without actual conflict triggers disclosure obligations but not prohibition; the Board declines to conflate appearance with actuality

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051752+00:00
value: Appearance without actual conflict triggers disclosure obligations but not prohibition; the Board declines to conflate appearance with actuality

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.050731+00:00
value: The disclosure standard prevails over the historical absolute avoidance standard; the profession's own evolution resolves the tension in favor of disclosure-and-management

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051389+00:00
value: The disclosure standard prevails over the historical absolute avoidance standard; the profession's own evolution resolves the tension in favor of disclosure-and-management

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051121+00:00
value: Engineering's non-advocate identity resolves the tension in favor of independence; the attorney's analogy is rejected as inapplicable to the engineering profession

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052790+00:00
value: Engineering's distinct professional identity prevails; the legal analogy is inapplicable and the conflict challenge based on it is rejected

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051584+00:00
value: Engineering's non-advocate identity resolves the tension in favor of independence; the attorney's analogy is rejected as inapplicable to the engineering profession

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.050833+00:00
value: Objectivity prevails as the core professional virtue; loyalty to former clients cannot override the engineer's obligation to render objective technical judgment in subsequent unrelated engagements

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052867+00:00
value: Engineering's non-advocate identity resolves the tension in favor of independence; the attorney's analogy is rejected as inapplicable to the engineering profession

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052925+00:00
value: Objectivity is maintained by treating each engagement as independent; the unrelated nature of the matters supports rather than undermines this independence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051440+00:00
value: Objectivity prevails as the core professional virtue; loyalty to former clients cannot override the engineer's obligation to render objective technical judgment in subsequent unrelated engagements

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053712+00:00
value: The factual independence of the patent and product liability matters means the prohibition is not triggered; opposing counsel's implication of impropriety misapplies the principle by ignoring the unrelated-matter exception

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052118+00:00
value: The Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint did NOT apply to Engineer A's acceptance of the product liability engagement because that matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation — the consent prerequisite is triggered only where the new engagement involves the same project, proceeding, or subject matter in which specialized confidential knowledge was gained on behalf of the former client, not where the matters are factually and substantively distinct.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.050910+00:00
value: Professional autonomy prevails as a systemic constraint on ethics code interpretation; the Board preserves engineer discretion even while acknowledging that individual engineers may choose more conservative approaches

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053336+00:00
value: Professional autonomy prevails as a systemic constraint on ethics code interpretation; the Board preserves engineer discretion even while acknowledging that individual engineers may choose more conservative approaches

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051513+00:00
value: Professional autonomy prevails as a systemic constraint on ethics code interpretation; the Board preserves engineer discretion even while acknowledging that individual engineers may choose more conservative approaches

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053815+00:00
value: Appearance without actual conflict triggers disclosure obligations but not prohibition; the Board declines to conflate appearance with actuality

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053041+00:00
value: Engineer A was required to proactively disclose to Attorney X, prior to or at the time of accepting the product liability engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation — enabling Attorney X to make an informed decision about retaining Engineer A with full knowledge of the prior relationship.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.050556+00:00
value: Disclosure satisfies the ethical obligation; the absence of actual conflict means prohibition is not required, but transparency about the full engagement history remains obligatory

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053109+00:00
value: Engineer A was required to proactively disclose to Attorney X, prior to or at the time of accepting the product liability engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation — enabling Attorney X to make an informed decision about retaining Engineer A with full knowledge of the prior relationship.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053181+00:00
value: Engineer A was required to proactively disclose to ABC Manufacturing, prior to or at the time of accepting the second patent litigation engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to Attorney X in the product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing — enabling ABC Manufacturing to make an informed decision about re-retaining Engineer A with full knowledge of the intervening adverse engagement.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053389+00:00
value: Disclosure satisfies the ethical obligation; the absence of actual conflict means prohibition is not required, but transparency about the full engagement history remains obligatory

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052473+00:00
value: Bounded loyalty is reconciled with professional autonomy by limiting the loyalty obligation to the scope and duration of the original engagement

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052317+00:00
value: Under the evolved NSPE conflict-of-interest standard, Engineer A was not required to absolutely avoid all engagements involving ABC Manufacturing after the first patent litigation — instead, the operative constraint required prompt and complete disclosure of all prior relationships to each new retaining party, allowing the retaining party to make an informed decision, rather than imposing an absolute bar on any engagement touching a former client.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052034+00:00
value: Loyalty obligations from the concluded patent engagement did not extend to bar adverse participation in the unrelated product liability matter; Engineer A retained professional independence to serve Attorney X

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053484+00:00
value: The disclosure standard prevails over the historical absolute avoidance standard; the profession's own evolution resolves the tension in favor of disclosure-and-management

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053659+00:00
value: Engineering's non-advocate identity resolves the tension in favor of independence; the attorney's analogy is rejected as inapplicable to the engineering profession

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053539+00:00
value: Objectivity prevails as the core professional virtue; loyalty to former clients cannot override the engineer's obligation to render objective technical judgment in subsequent unrelated engagements

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053591+00:00
value: Professional autonomy prevails as a systemic constraint on ethics code interpretation; the Board preserves engineer discretion even while acknowledging that individual engineers may choose more conservative approaches

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052417+00:00
value: Bounded loyalty prevails; absolute perpetual loyalty is rejected as impractical and autonomy-compromising

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052248+00:00
value: The disclosure standard prevails over the historical absolute avoidance standard; the profession's own evolution resolves the tension in favor of disclosure-and-management

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051947+00:00
value: Because the matters were factually and legally unrelated, the loyalty and confidentiality obligations from the prior patent engagement did not extend to bar adverse participation in the unrelated product liability matter; the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients principle confirms that loyalty does not attach perpetually to parties

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052975+00:00
value: Objectivity is maintained by treating each engagement as independent; the unrelated nature of the matters supports rather than undermines this independence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051860+00:00
value: Engineer A's multi-party service history is evidence of her independence as a technical expert rather than evidence of impropriety; the non-advocate principle supports the permissibility of her engagement pattern

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052541+00:00
value: The challenge fails because it does not identify an actual ethics violation; the engineer's prior relationships, properly disclosed, do not impair her independence or integrity in the current engagement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052599+00:00
value: The challenge fails because it does not identify an actual ethics violation; the engineer's prior relationships, properly disclosed, do not impair her independence or integrity in the current engagement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053763+00:00
value: The factual independence of the matters means the switching-sides prohibition is not triggered; the challenge misapplies the principle

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052191+00:00
value: The Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint did NOT apply to Engineer A's sequential engagements because each engagement involved a factually distinct and substantively unrelated matter — the switching-sides prohibition is triggered by confidential access to information relevant to the new adverse matter, not by the mere fact of prior service to the opposing party in an unrelated proceeding.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051200+00:00
value: The factual independence of the patent and product liability matters means the prohibition is not triggered; opposing counsel's implication of impropriety misapplies the principle by ignoring the unrelated-matter exception

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051275+00:00
value: The factual independence of the matters means the switching-sides prohibition is not triggered; the challenge misapplies the principle

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053235+00:00
value: The unrelated-matter condition distinguishes this case from switching-sides prohibition; no confidential information bridge exists between the prior patent matters and the current product liability matter

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.053286+00:00
value: The unrelated-matter condition distinguishes this case from switching-sides prohibition; no confidential information bridge exists between the prior patent matters and the current product liability matter

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051642+00:00
value: The factual independence of the patent and product liability matters means the prohibition is not triggered; opposing counsel's implication of impropriety misapplies the principle by ignoring the unrelated-matter exception

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.051701+00:00
value: The factual independence of the matters means the switching-sides prohibition is not triggered; the challenge misapplies the principle

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:18:56.052721+00:00
value: Appearance without actual conflict triggers disclosure obligations but not prohibition; the Board declines to conflate appearance with actuality

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation did not create a perpetual obligation of loyalty that would bar her from subsequently serving as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in the unrelated product liability mat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's role across all three engagements was as an objective technical expert providing independent analysis, not as an advocate for any party; the fact that she served both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary in unrelated matters is

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible because the matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation in which she had served ABC Manufacturing, and no confi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain full objectivity in each of her three engagements regardless of which party retained her, and her service to both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary across unrelated matters does not impair this objecti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's history of serving ABC Manufacturing twice in patent litigation and then serving Attorney X adversely against ABC Manufacturing in product liability litigation required proactive disclosure of the full engagement history to all

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition does not apply to Engineer A's engagement by Attorney X because the product liability matter did not involve any aspect of the earlier patent litigation — no specialized knowledge gain

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Opposing counsel's cross-examination implying that Engineer A acted improperly by serving both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary across unrelated matters constitutes a bad-faith challenge that mischaracterizes permissible professional con

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Switching Sides Prohibition does not apply to Engineer A's engagement by Attorney X because the product liability matter was entirely unrelated to the patent litigation matters in which Engineer A served ABC Manufacturing; the prohibiti

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation did not create a perpetual duty of loyalty that would bar her from subsequently serving as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in an enti

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior faithful agent obligations to ABC Manufacturing in two unrelated patent litigation matters did not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity that would bar her from accepting retent

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior faithful agent obligations to ABC Manufacturing in two unrelated patent litigation matters did not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity that would bar her from accepting retent

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain full objectivity and non-advocate status in each of her three separate engagements — twice for ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation and once for Attorney X in product liability litigation — rendering i

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain objective, technically grounded professional opinions in each of her three engagements — two for ABC Manufacturing and one for Attorney X — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain objective, technically grounded professional opinions in each of her three engagements — two for ABC Manufacturing and one for Attorney X — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize, assert, and document that her acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible under the NSPE Code because the product liabil

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and assert that her acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible because that matter was entirely unrelated to the prior pate

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to comply with the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard — disclosing known or potential conflicts to clients and employers — rather than applying the outdated absolute-avoidance standard, recognizing tha

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Attorney X, prior to or at the time of accepting the product liability engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to ABC Manufacturing in a patent litigation matter

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose her prior service history with ABC Manufacturing — including both patent litigation engagements — to Attorney X before or at the time of accepting retention in the product liability matter, s

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to ABC Manufacturing, prior to or at the time of accepting the second patent litigation engagement, that she had in the intervening period served as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply the principle that the appearance of a conflict of interest arising from her multi-party litigation service history — which reasonable persons might perceive — did not constitute an actual con

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to recognize and apply the principle that the appearance of a conflict of interest does not constitute an actual conflict under the Code, and to decline to find a code violation based solely on

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to resist and reject opposing counsel's attempt to analogize her forensic expert role to the institutionalized plaintiff's bar or defense bar structure of the legal profession, affirmatively asserting that engineers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to resist and reject opposing counsel's attempt to analogize her forensic expert role to the institutionalized plaintiff's bar or defense bar structure of the legal profession, affirmatively asserting that engineers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to exercise individualized professional judgment in deciding whether to accept the Attorney X engagement — recognizing that while some engineers might choose to decline such engagements out of caution, her decision

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite applied to her acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing, and to correctly determine that it did NOT app

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to correctly assess that the Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition did NOT apply to her acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing, because that matter was entirely unrelated to t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, when subjected to opposing counsel's cross-examination implying impropriety in her multi-party litigation service history, to affirmatively assert and maintain her professional independence — including the ethical

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, during cross-examination, to affirmatively assert and maintain that her service to both ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X across unrelated matters was ethically permissible, and to resist opposing counsel's implicat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain full objectivity and non-advocate status in each of her three separate engagements — twice for ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation and once for Attorney X in product liability litigation — rendering i

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation did not create a perpetual duty of loyalty that would bar her from subsequently serving as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in an enti

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to ABC Manufacturing, prior to or at the time of accepting the second patent litigation engagement, that she had in the intervening period served as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in the

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, when subjected to opposing counsel's cross-examination implying impropriety in her multi-party litigation service history, to affirmatively assert and maintain her professional independence — including the ethical

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain objective, technically grounded professional opinions in each of her three engagements — two for ABC Manufacturing and one for Attorney X — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite applied to her acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing, and to correctly determine that it did NOT app

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose her prior service history with ABC Manufacturing — including both patent litigation engagements — to Attorney X before or at the time of accepting retention in the product liability matter, s

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation did not create a perpetual duty of loyalty that would bar her from subsequently serving as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in an enti

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to correctly assess that the Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition did NOT apply to her acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing, because that matter was entirely unrelated to t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and assert that her acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible because that matter was entirely unrelated to the prior pate

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior faithful agent obligations to ABC Manufacturing in two unrelated patent litigation matters did not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity that would bar her from accepting retent

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, during cross-examination, to affirmatively assert and maintain that her service to both ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X across unrelated matters was ethically permissible, and to resist opposing counsel's implicat

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain full objectivity and non-advocate status in each of her three separate engagements — twice for ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation and once for Attorney X in product liability litigation — rendering i

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize, assert, and document that her acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible under the NSPE Code because the product liabil

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to comply with the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard — disclosing known or potential conflicts to clients and employers — rather than applying the outdated absolute-avoidance standard, recognizing tha

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Attorney X, prior to or at the time of accepting the product liability engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to ABC Manufacturing in a patent litigation matter

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply the principle that the appearance of a conflict of interest arising from her multi-party litigation service history — which reasonable persons might perceive — did not constitute an actual con

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to resist and reject opposing counsel's attempt to analogize her forensic expert role to the institutionalized plaintiff's bar or defense bar structure of the legal profession, affirmatively asserting that engineers

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to exercise individualized professional judgment in deciding whether to accept the Attorney X engagement — recognizing that while some engineers might choose to decline such engagements out of caution, her decision

Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Invoked Against Perpetual Devotion Claim
type: AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's acceptance of Attorney X's retention adverse to ABC Manufacturing
appliedto: NSPE Code Section II.4 faithful agent and trustee obligation
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held that Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing did not create a perpetual duty of absolute loyalty precluding her from serving as an expert adverse to ABC in an unrelated product liability matter
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent and trustee obligation is bounded in scope and duration; it does not extend to perpetual prohibition on adverse engagements in unrelated matters
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
sourcetext: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
tensionresolution: Bounded loyalty prevails; absolute perpetual loyalty is rejected as impractical and autonomy-compromising
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
textreferences: Such an approach would be impractical and compromise the autonomy and professional independence of engineers.
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.471412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession Absolute Avoidance Sequential Engagements
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureSupersessionofAbsoluteAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case arose during a period when the NSPE Code had evolved from requiring absolute avoidance of conflicts to requiring disclosure — this evolution directly governed whether Engineer A's sequential engagements were permissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: Under the evolved NSPE conflict-of-interest standard, Engineer A was not required to absolutely avoid all engagements involving ABC Manufacturing after the first patent litigation — instead, the operative constraint required prompt and complete disclosure of all prior relationships to each new retaining party, allowing the retaining party to make an informed decision, rather than imposing an absolute bar on any engagement touching a former client.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code evolved conflict of interest disclosure standard; BER Case No. 98-4; NSPE Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter.
temporalscope: Throughout all three sequential engagements
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter.
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter.
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.479884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Product Liability
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Assessment of whether ABC Manufacturing's consent was required before Engineer A could accept retention by opposing counsel in the unrelated product liability matter.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: The Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint did NOT apply to Engineer A's acceptance of the product liability engagement because that matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation — the consent prerequisite is triggered only where the new engagement involves the same project, proceeding, or subject matter in which specialized confidential knowledge was gained on behalf of the former client, not where the matters are factually and substantively distinct.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.479288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Proactive Disclosure to ABC Manufacturing Prior Product Liability Adverse Service
type: SequentialMulti-EngagementPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's intervening service against ABC Manufacturing in the product liability matter created a disclosure obligation to ABC Manufacturing before accepting the second patent litigation engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Sequential Multi-Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to proactively disclose to ABC Manufacturing, prior to or at the time of accepting the second patent litigation engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to Attorney X in the product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing — enabling ABC Manufacturing to make an informed decision about re-retaining Engineer A with full knowledge of the intervening adverse engagement.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code conflict of interest disclosure provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
temporalscope: Prior to or at the time of accepting the second ABC Manufacturing retention
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.479738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Unrelated Matters
type: SwitchingSidesAdversarialProceedingConfidentialAccessBarConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Opposing counsel's cross-examination implied that Engineer A's sequential service on opposing sides of ABC Manufacturing litigation constituted impermissible switching of sides — the constraint boundary required assessment of whether the switching-sides prohibition applied to unrelated matters.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
constraintstatement: The Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint did NOT apply to Engineer A's sequential engagements because each engagement involved a factually distinct and substantively unrelated matter — the switching-sides prohibition is triggered by confidential access to information relevant to the new adverse matter, not by the mere fact of prior service to the opposing party in an unrelated proceeding.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 85-4; NSPE Code Section II.4.b; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
temporalscope: Across all three sequential engagements
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.479454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X Prior ABC Manufacturing Relationship
type: SequentialMulti-EngagementPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing created a disclosure obligation to opposing counsel Attorney X before accepting the product liability engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Sequential Multi-Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to proactively disclose to Attorney X, prior to or at the time of accepting the product liability engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation — enabling Attorney X to make an informed decision about retaining Engineer A with full knowledge of the prior relationship.
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:57:42.991203+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code conflict of interest disclosure provisions; BER Case No. 98-4
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: Prior to or at the time of accepting retention by Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.479595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Second ABC Manufacturing Patent Litigation Retention
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From second retention by ABC Manufacturing through trial cross-examination and beyond
affectedparties: ABC Manufacturing
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's professional relationship with ABC Manufacturing in second patent litigation matter
terminatedby: Conclusion of second patent litigation proceedings
textreferences: Engineer A again performed the requested services and was paid for her work
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
triggeringevent: ABC Manufacturing again retaining Engineer A in a different patent litigation matter
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.472133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE BER Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Institutional Recognition in Engineer A Case
type: ConflictofInterestAppearanceNon-EquivalencetoActualConflictRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Sequential Adverse Engagement Appearance Challenge
casecontext: The Board conducted a careful review of Engineer A's multi-party litigation engagement history and concluded that while reasonable persons might perceive an appearance of conflict, no actual conflict existed under the NSPE Code of Ethics.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Appearance Without Actual Conflict Non-Violation Invoked for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to recognize and apply the principle that the appearance of a conflict of interest does not constitute an actual conflict under the Code, and to decline to find a code violation based solely on the appearance of impropriety arising from Engineer A's multi-party litigation service history, where the underlying facts established no actual conflict.
sourcetext: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical review and deliberation on the case
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics
textreferences: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.483421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Opposing Attorney Conflict Challenger
type: AttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Opposing Counsel Weaponization of Legitimate Prior Relationships
adheres to principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application to Unrelated Matters
attributes: {'challenge_basis': 'Alleged conflict of interest due to prior client relationships', 'argument': 'Attempted to impose legal advocacy model onto engineering profession'}
caseinvolvement: An attorney representing a party adverse to Engineer A's current client who challenged Engineer A's engagement as a conflict of interest, attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession's plaintiff/defense bar structure and engineering professional obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:51:38.745170+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:51:38.745170+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'challenges_engagement_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert'}
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Former Client 1 Adverse Party'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly, with the suggestion that Engineer A's action may have constituted a conflict of interest
textreferences: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
textreferences: the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly, with the suggestion that Engineer A's action may have constituted a conflict of interest
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.474232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Unrelated Matter Adverse Party Engagement Permissibility Invoked for Engineer A
type: UnrelatedMatterAdversePartyEngagementPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client's prior patent litigation engagements
appliedto: Engineer A's product liability engagement adverse to ABC Manufacturing
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Switching Sides Prohibition in Adversarial Proceedings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's acceptance of Attorney X's retention in a product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing — a former client in two unrelated patent litigation matters — was held permissible because the matters were factually unrelated and no confidential information from the prior engagements was implicated
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The unrelated-matter condition is the critical ethical boundary: when prior and current engagements are factually and legally distinct, the mere fact of having served both sides does not constitute a prohibited conflict
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
principleclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Party Engagement Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients.
tensionresolution: The unrelated-matter condition distinguishes this case from switching-sides prohibition; no confidential information bridge exists between the prior patent matters and the current product liability matter
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: While all engineers must make professional decisions based upon a variety of considerations and factors, engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations.
textreferences: the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.480727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Legal Profession Analogy Inapplicability Invoked Against Conflict Challenge
type: LegalProfessionAnalogyInapplicabilitytoEngineeringIndependencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's forensic expert independence
appliedto: Opposing Attorney Conflict Challenger's argument
balancingwith: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
balancingwith: Opposing Counsel Conflict Challenge Weaponization Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board specifically identified and rejected the opposing attorney's attempt to import the legal profession's plaintiff/defense bar structural division into engineering ethics analysis as a mechanism to characterize Engineer A's engagement as a conflict of interest
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The legal profession's structural advocacy norms are domain-specific to law and cannot be transplanted into engineering ethics without corrupting engineering's distinct professional identity as an objective technical discipline
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Legal Profession Analogy Inapplicability to Engineering Independence Principle
sourcetext: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
tensionresolution: Engineering's distinct professional identity prevails; the legal analogy is inapplicable and the conflict challenge based on it is rejected
textreferences: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
textreferences: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.481035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked as Foundation for Engineer A's Independent Expert Role
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's forensic expert analysis in product liability matter
appliedto: Technical assessment independent of prior client relationships
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's capacity to provide objective technical analysis in the product liability matter — unconstrained by prior loyalty to ABC Manufacturing — is the foundational professional virtue that justifies the Board's conclusion that no actual conflict exists
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in technical analysis is the professional virtue that distinguishes engineers from advocates; its preservation justifies permitting adverse engagements in unrelated matters because the engineer's judgment remains untainted
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: While all engineers must make professional decisions based upon a variety of considerations and factors, engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations.
tensionresolution: Objectivity prevails as the core professional virtue; loyalty to former clients cannot override the engineer's obligation to render objective technical judgment in subsequent unrelated engagements
textreferences: engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations
textreferences: while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.481753
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Attorney Advocacy Parallel Imputation Against Engineer A
type: Attorney-EngineeredAdvocacyParallelImputationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From attorney's challenge through Board's rejection of the attorney's characterization
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: Retaining attorney
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
stateclass: Attorney-Engineered Advocacy Parallel Imputation State
subject: Attorney's challenge to Engineer A's independence by analogy to legal profession side-loyalty norms
terminatedby: Board's conclusion that engineers are not advocates and are not bound by attorney-specific loyalty norms
textreferences: the Board is also concerned by the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly
textreferences: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
textreferences: unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy
triggeringevent: Attorney's implication that Engineer A's conduct violated norms analogous to the legal profession's plaintiff's bar / defense bar distinction
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.474905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Appearance of Impropriety Under Cross-Examination
type: EthicalAppearanceConflictWithoutDemonstratedActualConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From opposing counsel's cross-examination challenge through resolution of the credibility issue at trial
affectedparties: ABC Manufacturing
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Opposing counsel
affectedparties: Trier of fact
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
stateclass: Ethical Appearance Conflict Without Demonstrated Actual Conflict State
subject: The appearance of impropriety created by Engineer A's sequential service on opposing sides of ABC Manufacturing litigation, raised by opposing counsel despite absence of demonstrated actual conflict
terminatedby: Conclusion of trial proceedings or successful rebuttal of impropriety implication
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
triggeringevent: Opposing counsel implying Engineer A acted improperly by providing services both in defense of and in litigation against ABC Manufacturing
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.472479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Attorney X Plaintiff Retention Against ABC Manufacturing
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention by Attorney X through completion of product liability litigation services
affectedparties: ABC Manufacturing
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's professional relationship with Attorney X representing plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing in product liability litigation
terminatedby: Completion of product liability litigation engagement
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
triggeringevent: Attorney X retaining Engineer A to represent plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing in product liability matter
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.471924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Independence Under Adversarial Challenge
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateExpertIndependenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During cross-examination at trial in second ABC Manufacturing patent litigation
affectedparties: ABC Manufacturing
affectedparties: Court
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Opposing counsel
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: during cross-examination at trial, opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
stateclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
subject: Engineer A's objectivity and independence as expert witness being challenged by opposing counsel's implication of impropriety based on sequential client relationships
terminatedby: Conclusion of cross-examination and trial proceedings
textreferences: during cross-examination at trial, opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
triggeringevent: Opposing counsel's cross-examination implying Engineer A's prior relationships compromise her independence and objectivity
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.472637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Matter Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to ABC Manufacturing Second Retention
type: Multi-MatterForensicEngagementPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Second ABC Manufacturing Patent Litigation Retention
casecontext: Engineer A had served ABC Manufacturing in a first patent matter, then served against ABC Manufacturing in an unrelated product liability matter, and was then retained again by ABC Manufacturing in a second patent matter. The intervening adverse engagement required disclosure to ABC Manufacturing at the time of the second retention.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Multi-Matter Multi-Party Forensic Engagement Disclosure Obligation Invoked for Engineer A History
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to ABC Manufacturing, prior to or at the time of accepting the second patent litigation engagement, that she had in the intervening period served as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in the product liability matter retained by Attorney X, so that ABC Manufacturing could make an informed retention decision with full awareness of Engineer A's complete service history.
sourcetext: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
temporalscope: Prior to or at the time of accepting the second retention by ABC Manufacturing
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.476892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Professional Independence Assertion in Cross-Examination
type: OpposingCounselImproprietyImplicationProfessionalIndependenceAssertionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Appearance of Impropriety Under Cross-Examination
casecontext: Opposing counsel challenged Engineer A's engagement as a conflict of interest, attempting to weaponize her legitimate prior professional relationships with ABC Manufacturing to undermine her credibility as an expert witness in the product liability matter.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Opposing Counsel Weaponization of Legitimate Prior Relationships
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Professional Independence Assertion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, when subjected to opposing counsel's cross-examination implying impropriety in her multi-party litigation service history, to affirmatively assert and maintain her professional independence — including the ethical permissibility of her prior engagements with ABC Manufacturing and her current engagement with Attorney X — without capitulating to the implication of impropriety, providing clear, honest, and technically grounded testimony about the nature and scope of each prior engagement.
sourcetext: the Board is also concerned by the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly, with the suggestion that Engineer A's action may have constituted a conflict of interest
temporalscope: During cross-examination and adversarial challenge in the product liability proceeding
textreferences: It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist
textreferences: the Board is also concerned by the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly, with the suggestion that Engineer A's action may have constituted a conflict of interest
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.482832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Resistance Cross-Examination
type: OpposingCounselImproprietyImplicationProfessionalIndependenceAssertionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Appearance of Impropriety Under Cross-Examination
casecontext: During cross-examination at trial in the second ABC Manufacturing patent matter, opposing counsel questioned Engineer A's prior relationships with both ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X, implying impropriety in her having served both sides across different matters.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Opposing Counsel Weaponization of Legitimate Prior Relationships
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Professional Independence Assertion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, during cross-examination, to affirmatively assert and maintain that her service to both ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X across unrelated matters was ethically permissible, and to resist opposing counsel's implication that providing services in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing constituted improper conduct, by clearly and honestly explaining the unrelated nature of each engagement.
sourcetext: during cross-examination at trial, opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
temporalscope: During cross-examination at trial
textreferences: during cross-examination at trial, opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.477050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Sequential Adverse Engagement Appearance Challenge
type: EthicalAppearanceConflictWithoutDemonstratedActualConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which Engineer A accepted engagements adverse to former clients through the Board's determination that no actual conflict exists
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Former clients
affectedparties: Opposing parties in adversarial proceedings
affectedparties: Retaining attorney
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist
stateclass: Ethical Appearance Conflict Without Demonstrated Actual Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's pattern of expert engagements across matters involving former clients on opposing sides
terminatedby: Board of Ethical Review conclusion that no prohibited conflict of interest exists under the NSPE Code
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist
textreferences: the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly, with the suggestion that Engineer A's action may have constituted a conflict of interest
triggeringevent: Attorney's challenge implying Engineer A's conduct constituted a conflict of interest by analogy to legal profession norms
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.474395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Sequential Opposing-Side Expert Pattern
type: Multi-EngagementSequentialOpposing-SideExpertAppearanceChallengeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Crystallizes at cross-examination during second ABC Manufacturing patent litigation trial; retrospectively spans all three engagements
affectedparties: ABC Manufacturing
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Opposing counsel in second patent litigation
affectedparties: Plaintiff in product liability matter
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
stateclass: Multi-Engagement Sequential Opposing-Side Expert Appearance Challenge State
subject: Engineer A's cumulative pattern of serving ABC Manufacturing, then plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing, then ABC Manufacturing again across three unrelated matters
terminatedby: Conclusion of second patent litigation proceedings and resolution of credibility challenge
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
triggeringevent: Opposing counsel's cross-examination questioning Engineer A's prior relationships on both sides of litigation involving ABC Manufacturing
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.472321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
type: EngineeringProfessionConflictDisclosureNormEvolutionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which NSPE amended its code from avoidance to disclosure mandate — ongoing at time of this case
affectedparties: All NSPE member engineers
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Employers
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics...specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest
stateclass: Engineering Profession Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution State
subject: The operative NSPE Code standard governing engineer conflict of interest obligations
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — disclosure norm remains operative
textreferences: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics...specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest
textreferences: by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services
textreferences: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients
triggeringevent: Historical recognition that conflicts of interest are an immutable fact of engineering practice, leading to code revision
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.474720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Loyalty Invoked as Bounded Faithful Agent Obligation for Engineer A
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing
appliedto: NSPE Code Section II.4 faithful agent obligation
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board interpreted Engineer A's faithful agent and trustee obligation to ABC Manufacturing as bounded in scope (to the prior patent litigation matters) and duration (not perpetual), affirming that loyalty does not extend to prohibiting all future adverse engagements in unrelated matters
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Loyalty in engineering is a bounded relational obligation tied to specific engagements and their subject matter; it does not create perpetual constraints on professional independence beyond the scope of the prior engagement
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
tensionresolution: Bounded loyalty is reconciled with professional autonomy by limiting the loyalty obligation to the scope and duration of the original engagement
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.).
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.481905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Invoked in BER Historical Analysis
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's multi-party litigation expert engagements
appliedto: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions
balancingwith: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board traced the profession's evolution from absolute conflict avoidance to a disclosure-and-management standard, recognizing that conflicts are virtually immutable in engineering practice and that the ethical response is disclosure rather than mandatory recusal
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The evolution from avoidance to disclosure as the governing standard means Engineer A's adverse engagement against a former client in an unrelated matter must be evaluated under disclosure norms, not absolute avoidance norms
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
sourcetext: over time, the engineering profession came to the general conclusion that by the very nature of the role of the engineer in society, conflicts of interests were virtually an immutable fact of professional engineering practice and that it was generally impossible for the engineer to, in all cases, remove him or herself from such situations.
tensionresolution: The disclosure standard prevails over the historical absolute avoidance standard; the profession's own evolution resolves the tension in favor of disclosure-and-management
textreferences: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest.
textreferences: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients
textreferences: over time, the engineering profession came to the general conclusion that by the very nature of the role of the engineer in society, conflicts of interests were virtually an immutable fact of professional engineering practice
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.471253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
type: AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitionBoundaryDeterminationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A's conduct was challenged as a perpetual loyalty violation through the Board's ruling that no absolute loyalty duty exists
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Former clients
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:52:15.072528+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity
stateclass: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary Determination State
subject: Engineer A's post-engagement obligations to former clients in unrelated matters
terminatedby: Board determination that absolute perpetual loyalty is not required and would undermine engineer autonomy
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity
textreferences: Such an approach would be impractical and compromise the autonomy and professional independence of engineers
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client
textreferences: the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
triggeringevent: Attorney's challenge and Board's review of whether 'faithful agent and trustee' standard bars adverse engagements in unrelated matters
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.474558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X Engagements
type: ExpertWitnessEngineeringNon-AdvocateObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Expert Independence Under Adversarial Challenge
prevails over: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
casecontext: Engineer A served as a retained expert across three separate, unrelated litigation matters involving the same corporate party (ABC Manufacturing) on different sides, requiring consistent non-advocate objectivity in each engagement.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Adversarial Context Objectivity Maintained By Engineer A
derived from principle: Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across Multi-Party Engagements
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain full objectivity and non-advocate status in each of her three separate engagements — twice for ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation and once for Attorney X in product liability litigation — rendering independent technical opinions based on the facts of each matter rather than adopting a partisan position aligned with any retaining party.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
temporalscope: Throughout each of the three separate engagements
textreferences: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.477216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion in ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Matter
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseForensicEngagementPermissibilityAssertionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Sequential Opposing-Side Expert Pattern
prevails over: Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter
prevails over: Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter
casecontext: Engineer A served ABC Manufacturing in two patent litigation matters and subsequently accepted retention by Attorney X in a product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing. Opposing counsel challenged this as a conflict of interest. The Board found the engagement permissible because the matters were entirely unrelated.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize, assert, and document that her acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible under the NSPE Code because the product liability matter was entirely unrelated to either of her two prior patent litigation engagements for ABC Manufacturing, and to resist opposing counsel's characterization of the sequential service as a conflict of interest or improper switching of sides.
sourcetext: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the Attorney X engagement and throughout the adversarial proceeding
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics
textreferences: This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
textreferences: the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.482976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer Non-Advocate Status Invoked Against Attorney Bar Analogy
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateStatusinAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's forensic expert role in product liability litigation
appliedto: Opposing Attorney Conflict Challenger's bad-faith conflict challenge
balancingwith: Legal Profession Analogy Inapplicability to Engineering Independence Principle
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board rejected the opposing attorney's attempt to analogize engineering expert practice to the plaintiff's bar / defense bar structure of the legal profession, affirming that engineers are not advocates and retain professional independence from the adversarial posture of retaining counsel
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineering's professional identity as objective technical expert — not partisan advocate — means that the structural loyalty norms of the legal profession cannot be imported to constrain engineer independence in accepting adverse engagements
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
tensionresolution: Engineering's non-advocate identity resolves the tension in favor of independence; the attorney's analogy is rejected as inapplicable to the engineering profession
textreferences: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
textreferences: while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.480883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer Professional Autonomy Preservation Invoked Against Blanket Prohibition
type: EngineerProfessionalAutonomyandIndependencePreservationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BER's interpretation of NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions
appliedto: Engineer A's discretionary acceptance of Attorney X's retention
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board declined to hold that engineers who accept engagements adverse to former clients in unrelated matters violate the Code, because such a holding would systematically undermine the individual judgment and discretion that each engineer must exercise
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Ethics code interpretation must preserve rather than erode engineer autonomy; blanket prohibitions on adverse engagements against former clients in unrelated matters would improperly constrain the professional independence foundational to engineering practice
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
sourcetext: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise.
tensionresolution: Professional autonomy prevails as a systemic constraint on ethics code interpretation; the Board preserves engineer discretion even while acknowledging that individual engineers may choose more conservative approaches
textreferences: Such an approach would be impractical and compromise the autonomy and professional independence of engineers.
textreferences: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise.
textreferences: some engineers might choose to decline an engagement that could place the engineer in a position adverse to the interests of a former client, even though the engagement is not in any way related to the engineer's earlier services to the client. However, the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.481413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Absolute Loyalty Non-Extension to Former Client ABC Manufacturing
type: AbsoluteLoyaltyProhibitiontoFormerClients
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client
appliedto: Attorney X Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation did not create a perpetual obligation of loyalty that would bar her from subsequently serving as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in the unrelated product liability matter
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The duty of loyalty to a client attaches to the specific engagement and its subject matter; once that engagement concludes, the engineer retains professional autonomy to accept subsequent engagements, including those adverse to the former client, provided the new matter is unrelated and no confidential information is implicated
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
principleclass: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise. Engineer A performed the requested services and was paid for her work by ABC Manufacturing. Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
tensionresolution: Loyalty obligations from the concluded patent engagement did not extend to bar adverse participation in the unrelated product liability matter; Engineer A retained professional independence to serve Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A performed the requested services and was paid for her work by ABC Manufacturing.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.475474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance in Multi-Party Litigation History
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
prevails over: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
casecontext: The Board traced the historical evolution of conflict-of-interest standards in engineering ethics codes from absolute avoidance to disclosure and management, applying the current evolved standard to Engineer A's multi-party engagement history.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Invoked in BER Historical Analysis
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to comply with the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard — disclosing known or potential conflicts to clients and employers — rather than applying the outdated absolute-avoidance standard, recognizing that the profession's evolution from mandatory avoidance to mandatory disclosure and management governed her multi-party litigation engagement history.
sourcetext: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's acceptance and performance of the Attorney X engagement
textreferences: At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest
textreferences: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services
textreferences: over time, the engineering profession came to the general conclusion that by the very nature of the role of the engineer in society, conflicts of interests were virtually an immutable fact of professional engineering practice
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.482214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Matter Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
type: Multi-MatterForensicEngagementPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Recognition ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
defeasible under: Engineer A Attorney X Plaintiff Retention Against ABC Manufacturing
casecontext: Engineer A had previously served ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation before being retained by Attorney X to serve against ABC Manufacturing in an unrelated product liability matter. The prior relationship was not disclosed proactively and emerged only during cross-examination.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Multi-Matter Multi-Party Forensic Engagement Disclosure Obligation Invoked for Engineer A History
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Attorney X, prior to or at the time of accepting the product liability engagement, that she had previously rendered professional services to ABC Manufacturing in a patent litigation matter, so that Attorney X could make an informed retention decision with full awareness of Engineer A's prior service history with the adverse party.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
temporalscope: Prior to or at the time of accepting retention by Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
textreferences: Several years later, Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.476756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across Multi-Party Engagements
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateStatusinAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client
appliedto: Attorney X Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's role across all three engagements was as an objective technical expert providing independent analysis, not as an advocate for any party; the fact that she served both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary in unrelated matters is consistent with — not contrary to — her non-advocate status as a forensic engineer
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: An engineer who serves multiple parties across unrelated matters demonstrates independence rather than partiality; the non-advocate principle requires that each engagement be conducted with full objectivity, which is not compromised by having served different parties in different, unrelated matters
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
principleclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's multi-party service history is evidence of her independence as a technical expert rather than evidence of impropriety; the non-advocate principle supports the permissibility of her engagement pattern
textreferences: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.475998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Former Client Adversarial Participation Assessment in Unrelated Matter
type: FormerClientAdversarialParticipationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client
appliedto: Former Client 1 Adverse Party
appliedto: Former Client 2 Adverse Party
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Unrelated Matter Adverse Party Engagement Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition does not apply to Engineer A's engagement by Attorney X because the product liability matter did not involve any aspect of the earlier patent litigation — no specialized knowledge gained in the prior engagement was deployed against ABC Manufacturing in the adverse matter
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on former client adverse participation is triggered only when the new matter involves the same or related subject matter, or when specialized knowledge from the prior engagement would be used against the former client; where matters are genuinely unrelated, the prohibition does not apply
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
invokedby: Opposing Attorney Conflict Challenger
principleclass: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
tensionresolution: The factual independence of the patent and product liability matters means the prohibition is not triggered; opposing counsel's implication of impropriety misapplies the principle by ignoring the unrelated-matter exception
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.475671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application to Unrelated Matters
type: SwitchingSidesProhibitioninAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Unrelated Matter Adverse Party Engagement Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Switching Sides Prohibition does not apply to Engineer A's engagement by Attorney X because the product liability matter was entirely unrelated to the patent litigation matters in which Engineer A served ABC Manufacturing; the prohibition is triggered only when the engineer switches sides in the same or related proceeding, not when serving different parties in genuinely independent matters
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Opposing counsel's implication of impropriety conflates the switching-sides prohibition (which applies to same or related matters) with the permissible practice of serving different parties across unrelated matters; the principle does not extend to create a lifetime bar on adverse participation
invokedby: Opposing Attorney Conflict Challenger
principleclass: Switching Sides Prohibition in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
tensionresolution: The factual independence of the matters means the switching-sides prohibition is not triggered; the challenge misapplies the principle
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.476174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A
type: UnrelatedMatterAdversePartyEngagementPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Product liability engagement by Attorney X against ABC Manufacturing
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible because the matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation in which she had served ABC Manufacturing, and no confidential information or specialized knowledge from the prior engagement was implicated in the adverse matter
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The unrelated nature of the patent litigation and product liability matters means that Engineer A's acceptance of the adverse engagement did not violate loyalty or confidentiality obligations to ABC Manufacturing; professional autonomy permits engineers to accept engagements adverse to former clients when matters are genuinely independent
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
principleclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Party Engagement Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
tensionresolution: Because the matters were factually and legally unrelated, the loyalty and confidentiality obligations from the prior patent engagement did not extend to bar adverse participation in the unrelated product liability matter; the Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients principle confirms that loyalty does not attach perpetually to parties
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.475251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Adversarial Context Objectivity Maintained By Engineer A
type: AdversarialEngagementObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client
appliedto: Attorney X Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was obligated to maintain full objectivity in each of her three engagements regardless of which party retained her, and her service to both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary across unrelated matters does not impair this objectivity provided each engagement was conducted independently on its own technical merits
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The objectivity obligation applies within each engagement; serving different parties in unrelated matters does not create a structural objectivity problem, but Engineer A must ensure that each engagement's analysis is conducted without reference to or influence from prior engagements
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
principleclass: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
tensionresolution: Objectivity is maintained by treating each engagement as independent; the unrelated nature of the matters supports rather than undermines this independence
textreferences: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.476332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition in Multi-Party Litigation
type: ConflictofInterestAppearanceNon-EquivalencetoActualConflictRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
defeasible under: Engineer A Sequential Adverse Engagement Appearance Challenge
prevails over: Engineer A Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
casecontext: The Board acknowledged that reasonable persons might perceive an appearance of conflict in Engineer A's service to both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary across unrelated matters, but concluded that no actual conflict existed under the Code.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Appearance Without Actual Conflict Non-Violation Invoked for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply the principle that the appearance of a conflict of interest arising from her multi-party litigation service history — which reasonable persons might perceive — did not constitute an actual conflict under the NSPE Code, and that she was not required to decline the Attorney X engagement solely because it created an appearance of conflict when the underlying facts established no actual conflict.
sourcetext: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the Attorney X engagement and in responding to the conflict challenge
textreferences: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist
textreferences: the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.483118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation in Adverse Former Client Engagement Decision
type: IndividualEngineeringJudgmentAutonomyNon-SubordinationtoCategoricalProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
defeasible under: Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
prevails over: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
casecontext: The Board explicitly recognized that some engineers might choose to decline engagements adverse to former clients even in unrelated matters, while others might accept them, and that neither choice constitutes a code violation — preserving the space for individualized professional judgment.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Engineer Professional Autonomy Preservation Invoked Against Blanket Prohibition
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Non-Subordination to Categorical Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to exercise individualized professional judgment in deciding whether to accept the Attorney X engagement — recognizing that while some engineers might choose to decline such engagements out of caution, her decision to accept was a legitimate exercise of professional discretion that did not constitute a code violation, and that no categorical prohibition barred her from making this individualized judgment.
sourcetext: For a variety of reasons, some engineers might choose to decline an engagement that could place the engineer in a position adverse to the interests of a former client, even though the engagement is not in any way related to the engineer's earlier services to the client
temporalscope: At the time of deciding whether to accept the Attorney X engagement
textreferences: For a variety of reasons, some engineers might choose to decline an engagement that could place the engineer in a position adverse to the interests of a former client, even though the engagement is not in any way related to the engineer's earlier services to the client
textreferences: To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise
textreferences: the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.483259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Opposing Counsel Weaponization of Legitimate Prior Relationships
type: OpposingCounselConflictChallengeWeaponizationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
balancingwith: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Opposing counsel's cross-examination implying that Engineer A acted improperly by serving both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary across unrelated matters constitutes a bad-faith challenge that mischaracterizes permissible professional conduct as an ethics violation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:54:14.424192+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Because the matters were unrelated and no confidentiality or loyalty violations occurred, opposing counsel's implication of impropriety is a litigation tactic rather than a legitimate ethics challenge; Engineer A's conduct was consistent with applicable professional ethics standards
invokedby: Opposing Attorney Conflict Challenger
principleclass: Opposing Counsel Conflict Challenge Weaponization Prohibition
sourcetext: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
tensionresolution: The challenge fails because it does not identify an actual ethics violation; the engineer's prior relationships, properly disclosed, do not impair her independence or integrity in the current engagement
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.475817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
type: SequentialAdverseRepresentationinUnrelatedMattersState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Spans the entire timeline from first engagement through cross-examination challenge
affectedparties: ABC Manufacturing
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Opposing counsel
affectedparties: Plaintiff
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:46.429420+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
stateclass: Sequential Adverse Representation in Unrelated Matters State
subject: The factual condition that all three of Engineer A's engagements — two for ABC Manufacturing and one for plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing — involve genuinely separate, unrelated subject matter (patent litigation vs. product liability), such that no confidential information from any prior engagement is implicated in subsequent ones
terminatedby: Conclusion of all proceedings
textreferences: in a different patent litigation matter not related to either of the proceeding events
textreferences: in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
triggeringevent: Pattern of sequential engagements across unrelated matters becoming subject to adversarial scrutiny
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.472805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Appearance Without Actual Conflict Non-Violation Invoked for Engineer A
type: ConflictofInterestAppearanceWithoutActualConflictNon-ViolationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing and subsequent adverse engagement
appliedto: Opposing attorney's conflict challenge
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledged that reasonable persons might perceive an appearance of conflict in Engineer A's multi-party litigation history but concluded that no actual prohibited conflict existed, declining to treat the appearance as an ethics violation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The appearance of a conflict — even one that reasonable persons might perceive — does not automatically constitute an actual ethics violation; the Board must assess whether actual influence on professional judgment exists
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Appearance Without Actual Conflict Non-Violation Principle
sourcetext: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
tensionresolution: Appearance without actual conflict triggers disclosure obligations but not prohibition; the Board declines to conflate appearance with actuality
textreferences: While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
textreferences: engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.481207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Engineer Autonomy Non-Subordination to Legal Profession Bar Analogy in Product Liability Engagement
type: EngineerAutonomyNon-SubordinationtoInstitutionalizedAdvocacyBarAnalogyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
defeasible under: Attorney Advocacy Parallel Imputation Against Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
casecontext: Opposing counsel cross-examined Engineer A implying that her service to both ABC Manufacturing and its adversary across unrelated matters constituted improper conduct analogous to an attorney switching sides, attempting to import the legal profession's structural division into engineering practice.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineer Non-Advocate Status Invoked Against Attorney Bar Analogy
derived from principle: Legal Profession Analogy Inapplicability Invoked Against Conflict Challenge
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Engineer Autonomy Non-Subordination to Institutionalized Advocacy Bar Analogy Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist and reject opposing counsel's attempt to analogize her forensic expert role to the institutionalized plaintiff's bar or defense bar structure of the legal profession, affirmatively asserting that engineers are not advocates and that no engineering equivalent of the plaintiff/defense bar dichotomy exists or should constrain her professional independence.
sourcetext: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
temporalscope: During cross-examination in the product liability matter and throughout the adversarial proceeding
textreferences: the Board is also concerned by the attorney's implication under the facts that Engineer A may have acted improperly
textreferences: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
textreferences: while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services, they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.482685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter
type: FormerClientAdversarialProceedingConsentPrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
defeasible under: Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
casecontext: Engineer A's prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation raised the question of whether consent was required before serving against ABC Manufacturing; the correct analysis required recognizing the unrelated-matter exception to the consent prerequisite.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Former Client Adversarial Participation Assessment in Unrelated Matter
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite applied to her acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing, and to correctly determine that it did NOT apply because the product liability matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation engagement, involved no specialized knowledge gained specifically from ABC Manufacturing that was being deployed against ABC Manufacturing's interests in the same or related matter.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
temporalscope: Prior to accepting retention by Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter in an area of Engineer A's expertise.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.477637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
type: Multi-MatterForensicEngagementPriorRelationshipProactiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition in Multi-Party Litigation
defeasible under: Engineer A Attorney X Plaintiff Retention Against ABC Manufacturing
casecontext: Engineer A had served ABC Manufacturing twice in patent litigation before accepting retention by Attorney X in a product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing. Proactive disclosure of this prior relationship to the new retaining party was required to prevent the appearance of impropriety from arising unexpectedly during cross-examination.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Multi-Matter Multi-Party Forensic Engagement Disclosure Obligation Invoked for Engineer A History
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose her prior service history with ABC Manufacturing — including both patent litigation engagements — to Attorney X before or at the time of accepting retention in the product liability matter, so that Attorney X could make an informed retention decision with full awareness of Engineer A's prior service to the adverse party.
sourcetext: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics
temporalscope: Before or at the time of accepting retention by Attorney X
textreferences: After careful review and analysis of the facts and circumstances in the case, we believe the facts do not rise to the level of a conflict of interest prohibited by the Code of Ethics
textreferences: codes were changed, and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.482354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter
type: SwitchingSidesForensicExpertProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
defeasible under: Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
casecontext: Opposing counsel implied that Engineer A's service against ABC Manufacturing after previously serving ABC Manufacturing constituted improper switching of sides; Engineer A was obligated to recognize and assert that the prohibition does not apply to unrelated matters.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application to Unrelated Matters
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to correctly assess that the Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition did NOT apply to her acceptance of the product liability engagement against ABC Manufacturing, because that matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation, involved no shared confidential information or documents from the prior engagement, and therefore did not constitute the prohibited 'switching sides' scenario — and to assert this non-application clearly when challenged during cross-examination.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the product liability engagement and during cross-examination at trial
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.477499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Across Multi-Party Engagements
type: ExpertWitnessEngineeringNon-AdvocateObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
defeasible under: Attorney Advocacy Parallel Imputation Against Engineer A
defeasible under: Engineer A Expert Independence Under Adversarial Challenge
prevails over: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
casecontext: Opposing counsel challenged Engineer A's engagement by implying she had acted improperly by serving parties on both sides of litigation across unrelated matters, attempting to draw a parallel to the legal profession's institutionalized plaintiff/defense bar structure. The Board rejected this characterization.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Adversarial Context Objectivity Maintained By Engineer A
derived from principle: Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across Multi-Party Engagements
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain objective, technically grounded professional opinions in each of her three engagements — two for ABC Manufacturing and one for Attorney X — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as an advocate for any party, and to resist the opposing attorney's attempt to characterize her as operating within a plaintiff's bar or defense bar structure analogous to the legal profession.
sourcetext: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
temporalscope: Throughout all three litigation engagements and specifically during cross-examination in the product liability matter
textreferences: the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
textreferences: they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy
textreferences: while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not 'advocates' in rendering their professional services
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.482536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Recognition ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
type: Non-AbsoluteFormerClientLoyaltyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Multi-Matter Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
defeasible under: Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
defeasible under: NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
defeasible under: Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
casecontext: Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney X against ABC Manufacturing was challenged as improper; the obligation requires Engineer A to recognize and apply the correct boundary of former-client loyalty under the NSPE Code.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Absolute Loyalty Non-Extension to Former Client ABC Manufacturing
derived from principle: Loyalty Invoked as Bounded Faithful Agent Obligation for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior service to ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation did not create a perpetual duty of loyalty that would bar her from subsequently serving as an expert against ABC Manufacturing in an entirely unrelated product liability matter, provided the new engagement did not involve confidential information from the prior engagement or the same project or proceeding.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X and when asserting the permissibility of that engagement during cross-examination
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.477361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
type: UnrelatedMatterAdverseForensicEngagementPermissibilityAssertionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter
competes with: Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter
defeasible under: Engineer A Sequential Opposing-Side Expert Pattern
casecontext: Engineer A had previously served ABC Manufacturing in patent litigation, then accepted retention by Attorney X representing a plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing in an unrelated product liability matter, and was later retained again by ABC Manufacturing in a second unrelated patent matter.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:55:48.807093+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and assert that her acceptance of retention by Attorney X in the product liability matter against ABC Manufacturing was ethically permissible because that matter was entirely unrelated to the prior patent litigation in which she had served ABC Manufacturing, involved no shared confidential information, and therefore did not trigger the switching-sides prohibition or the former-client consent-prerequisite rule.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X and throughout the product liability engagement, including during cross-examination at trial
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.476612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Multi-Matter Multi-Party Forensic Engagement Disclosure Obligation Invoked for Engineer A History
type: Multi-MatterMulti-PartyForensicEngagementDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ABC Manufacturing Repeat Litigation Client
appliedto: Attorney X Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
appliedto: Engineer A's three-matter litigation history
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
balancingwith: Unrelated Matter Adverse Party Engagement Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's history of serving ABC Manufacturing twice in patent litigation and then serving Attorney X adversely against ABC Manufacturing in product liability litigation required proactive disclosure of the full engagement history to all retaining parties so they could assess any legitimate conflict concerns
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:59:47.888317+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even where no actual conflict exists, the multi-party engagement history triggers a disclosure obligation so that retaining parties can make informed decisions about the engagement
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
principleclass: Multi-Matter Multi-Party Forensic Engagement Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
tensionresolution: Disclosure satisfies the ethical obligation; the absence of actual conflict means prohibition is not required, but transparency about the full engagement history remains obligatory
textreferences: engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients, by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services
textreferences: the Board of Ethical Review has considered a variety of difficult cases involving conflicts of interest and the scope of an engineer's ethical obligation to past and present clients
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.481576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Party Litigation Expert
type: Multi-PartyLitigationExpertEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Absolute Loyalty Non-Extension to Former Client ABC Manufacturing
adheres to principle: Adversarial Context Objectivity Maintained By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across Multi-Party Engagements
adheres to principle: Former Client Adversarial Participation Assessment in Unrelated Matter
adheres to principle: Multi-Matter Multi-Party Forensic Engagement Disclosure Obligation Invoked for Engineer A History
adheres to principle: Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition in Multi-Party Litigation
has obligation: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance in Multi-Party Litigation History
has obligation: Engineer A Engineer Autonomy Non-Subordination to Legal Profession Bar Analogy in Product Liability Engagement
has obligation: Engineer A Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Across Multi-Party Engagements
has obligation: Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter
has obligation: Engineer A Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation in Adverse Former Client Engagement Decision
has obligation: Engineer A Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
has obligation: Engineer A Multi-Matter Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to ABC Manufacturing Second Retention
has obligation: Engineer A Multi-Matter Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Recognition ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X Engagements
has obligation: Engineer A Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Professional Independence Assertion in Cross-Examination
has obligation: Engineer A Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Resistance Cross-Examination
has obligation: Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter
has obligation: Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
has obligation: Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion in ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Matter
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by expert retention)', 'specialty': 'Area of expertise relevant to patent and product liability matters', 'engagement_count': 3, 'parties_served': ['ABC Manufacturing (defense/patent)', 'Attorney X plaintiff (product liability against ABC Manufacturing)', 'ABC Manufacturing (defense/patent, second matter)']}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A was retained across three separate, unrelated litigation matters — twice by ABC Manufacturing (patent litigation) and once by Attorney X representing a plaintiff against ABC Manufacturing (product liability). During cross-examination, opposing counsel questioned whether these multiple engagements on both sides of litigation with the same company constituted improper conduct, raising issues of professional independence and objectivity.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:50:27.451338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:50:27.451338+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial_scrutiny', 'target': 'Opposing Counsel at Trial'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'ABC Manufacturing (first patent matter)'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'ABC Manufacturing (second patent matter)'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Attorney X / Plaintiff (product liability matter)'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-Party Litigation Expert Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was again retained by ABC Manufacturing in a different patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing
textreferences: opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.473745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
type: Non-AbsoluteFormerClientLoyaltyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance in Multi-Party Litigation History
competes with: Engineer A Engineer Autonomy Non-Subordination to Legal Profession Bar Analogy in Product Liability Engagement
competes with: Engineer A Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Across Multi-Party Engagements
competes with: Engineer A Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation in Adverse Former Client Engagement Decision
defeasible under: Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
defeasible under: NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
defeasible under: Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
casecontext: Engineer A had previously served ABC Manufacturing in two patent litigation matters and subsequently accepted retention by Attorney X in a product liability matter adverse to ABC Manufacturing. The Board found no actual conflict of interest because the matters were entirely unrelated.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Absolute Loyalty Non-Extension to Former Client ABC Manufacturing
derived from principle: Loyalty Invoked as Bounded Faithful Agent Obligation for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 179
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 179
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:01:53.198676+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that her prior faithful agent obligations to ABC Manufacturing in two unrelated patent litigation matters did not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity that would bar her from accepting retention by Attorney X in an adverse product liability matter, provided the new matter was entirely unrelated to the prior engagements and no confidential information from those engagements was implicated.
sourcetext: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client
temporalscope: At the time of accepting retention by Attorney X and throughout the product liability engagement
textreferences: Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity (See Code Section II.4.)
textreferences: This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients
textreferences: engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client
wasattributedto: Case 179 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:10:12.482063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 179 Extraction