This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 14:28; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 172: Objectivity of Engineer Retained as Expert

30 entities 6 actions 5 events 7 causal chains 11 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 11 sequenced markers
Initial Engagement Acceptance Start of the case timeline, when hired by Attorney Z
Adverse Finding Disclosure Following Engineer A's review and analysis, before termination
Failure to Consult Former Client Before agreeing to Attorney X's engagement
Service Termination Immediately after Engineer A's adverse finding
Retention Solicitation After Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z
Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance After termination by Attorney Z, end of the factual timeline
Adverse Analysis Finding Following Engineer A's review and analysis for Attorney Z
Confidential Information Access Throughout Engineer A's first analysis for Attorney Z
Fee Payment Completion Upon termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z
Adverse Party Awareness Thereafter, following termination of Engineer A's services
Independence Compromise Upon Engineer A's agreement to provide the report for Attorney X
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 11 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer A's retention by Attorney Z time:intervalBefore Engineer A's review and analysis
Engineer A's review and analysis time:intervalBefore Engineer A's determination that he cannot provide a favorable report
Engineer A's determination of plaintiff's fault time:intervalBefore termination of Engineer A's services and payment of fee
termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z time:intervalBefore Attorney X learning of the circumstances and seeking to retain Engineer A
Attorney X seeking to retain Engineer A time:intervalBefore Engineer A agreeing to provide the report
Engineer A's access to plaintiff's information and documents time:intervalDuring Engineer A's first engagement/analysis for Attorney Z
prior BER decisions (74-2, 76-3, 82-2, 82-6) time:intervalBefore the present case analysis
engineer's resignation from conflicting position time:intervalBefore agreeing to perform services for a client with a conflicting interest (recommended ordering)
Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to the former client (plaintiff) time:intervalDuring the legal proceeding (personal injury case)
Engineer A's ethical conduct time:intervalFinishes termination of relationship with Attorney Z
termination of relationship with Attorney Z time:intervalBefore Engineer A's transgression (subsequent involvement with Attorney X)
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney Z, plaintiff's counsel, to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in a personal injury case.

Temporal Marker: Start of the case timeline, when hired by Attorney Z instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Access to Plaintiff Confidential Information

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of the plaintiff

Required Capabilities:
Forensic engineering analysis Expert testimony
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Forensic engineering analysis; Expert testimony
  • initiates: Access to Plaintiff Confidential Information
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney Z, plaintiff's counsel, to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in a personal injury case.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Start of the case timeline, when hired by Attorney Z
  • eventRoleContext content: Forensic Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of the plaintiff
  • textReferences content: He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Initial_Engagement_Acceptance",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.493863+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney Z, plaintiff\u0027s counsel, to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in a personal injury case.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Forensic Engineer",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Access to Plaintiff Confidential Information"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of the plaintiff",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Forensic engineering analysis",
    "Expert testimony"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Start of the case timeline, when hired by Attorney Z",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Initial Engagement Acceptance"
}

Description: After completing his review and analysis, Engineer A determines and communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff because his analysis indicates the plaintiff was at fault.

Temporal Marker: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, before termination instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Adverse Finding Known to Plaintiff Side

Mental State: deliberate and truthful

Intended Outcome: Report his professional findings honestly rather than tailor them to the client's legal interests

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Loss of the engagement with Attorney Z
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Duty to Be Objective in Professional Reports
Guided By Principles:
  • Objectivity
Required Capabilities:
Forensic engineering analysis Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Duty to Be Objective in Professional Reports
  • guidedByPrinciple: Objectivity
  • requiresCapability: Forensic engineering analysis; Professional judgment
  • initiates: Adverse Finding Known to Plaintiff Side
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: After completing his review and analysis, Engineer A determines and communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff because his analysis indicates the plaintiff was at fault.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, before termination
  • eventRoleContext content: Forensic Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate and truthful
  • intendedOutcome content: Report his professional findings honestly rather than tailor them to the client's legal interests
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Loss of the engagement with Attorney Z
  • textReferences content: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case; Engineer A did not act in the role as a "hired gun," seeking to testify in favor of the client who was paying his fee.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Adverse_Finding_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.494389+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "After completing his review and analysis, Engineer A determines and communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff because his analysis indicates the plaintiff was at fault.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Forensic Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Loss of the engagement with Attorney Z"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Duty to Be Objective in Professional Reports"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and truthful",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Adverse Finding Known to Plaintiff Side"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Report his professional findings honestly rather than tailor them to the client\u0027s legal interests",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Forensic engineering analysis",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following Engineer A\u0027s review and analysis, before termination",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case",
    "Engineer A did not act in the role as a \"hired gun,\" seeking to testify in favor of the client who was paying his fee."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Adverse Finding Disclosure"
}

Description: Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services after learning the analysis would not support the plaintiff, and pays his fee in full.

Temporal Marker: Immediately after Engineer A's adverse finding instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Former Client Relationship
Terminates (1)
  • Active Consulting Engagement with Attorney Z

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: End the engagement with an expert whose report would harm the plaintiff's case

Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Former Client Relationship
  • terminates: Active Consulting Engagement with Attorney Z
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services after learning the analysis would not support the plaintiff, and pays his fee in full.
  • hasAgent content: Attorney Z
  • temporalMarker content: Immediately after Engineer A's adverse finding
  • eventRoleContext content: Plaintiff's Attorney
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: End the engagement with an expert whose report would harm the plaintiff's case
  • textReferences content: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Service_Termination",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.494465+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Attorney Z terminates Engineer A\u0027s services after learning the analysis would not support the plaintiff, and pays his fee in full.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Plaintiff\u0027s Attorney",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Attorney Z",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Former Client Relationship"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "End the engagement with an expert whose report would harm the plaintiff\u0027s case",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Immediately after Engineer A\u0027s adverse finding",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Active Consulting Engagement with Attorney Z"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s services are terminated and his fee is paid in full."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Service Termination"
}

Description: Attorney X, defendant's counsel, learns of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination and seeks to retain him for an ostensibly independent report, believing the report would be favorable to the defendant.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z instant

Mental State: strategic and deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain an expert report favorable to the defendant based on Engineer A's known prior adverse findings against the plaintiff

Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Attorney X, defendant's counsel, learns of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination and seeks to retain him for an ostensibly independent report, believing the report would be favorable to the defendant.
  • hasAgent content: Attorney X
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer A's termination by Attorney Z
  • eventRoleContext content: Defendant's Attorney
  • hasMentalState content: strategic and deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Obtain an expert report favorable to the defendant based on Engineer A's known prior adverse findings against the plaintiff
  • textReferences content: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report; the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Retention_Solicitation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.494499+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Attorney X, defendant\u0027s counsel, learns of the circumstances of Engineer A\u0027s termination and seeks to retain him for an ostensibly independent report, believing the report would be favorable to the defendant.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Defendant\u0027s Attorney",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Attorney X",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "strategic and deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain an expert report favorable to the defendant based on Engineer A\u0027s known prior adverse findings against the plaintiff",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A\u0027s termination by Attorney Z",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A\u0027s unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z\u0027s case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report",
    "the real reason for the defendant\u0027s attorney\u0027s hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Retention Solicitation"
}

Description: Engineer A did not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney X with his former client, Attorney Z, before agreeing to it, an omission the Board treats as part of his transgression.

Temporal Marker: Before agreeing to Attorney X's engagement instant

Mental State: negligent omission, aware of the circumstances of his prior retention and termination

Intended Outcome: Proceed with the defendant engagement without raising the matter with the former client

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Acting without the former client's knowledge or consent
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Duty to Obtain Consent of Former Client (Section III.4.b)
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty to Obtain Consent of Former Client (Section III.4.b)
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A did not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney X with his former client, Attorney Z, before agreeing to it, an omission the Board treats as part of his transgression.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Before agreeing to Attorney X's engagement
  • eventRoleContext content: Forensic Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: negligent omission, aware of the circumstances of his prior retention and termination
  • intendedOutcome content: Proceed with the defendant engagement without raising the matter with the former client
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Acting without the former client's knowledge or consent
  • textReferences content: At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.; there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Failure_to_Consult_Former_Client",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495220+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A did not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney X with his former client, Attorney Z, before agreeing to it, an omission the Board treats as part of his transgression.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Forensic Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Acting without the former client\u0027s knowledge or consent"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "negligent omission, aware of the circumstances of his prior retention and termination",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Proceed with the defendant engagement without raising the matter with the former client",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before agreeing to Attorney X\u0027s engagement",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.",
    "there was nothing in the record to indicate that the engineer was given the consent of his former client"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty to Obtain Consent of Former Client (Section III.4.b)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Failure to Consult Former Client"
}

Description: Engineer A agrees to provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for Attorney X, the opposing party's counsel in the same legal proceeding, without consent of his former client.

Temporal Marker: After termination by Attorney Z, end of the factual timeline instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Breach of Trust and Loyalty to Former Client

Mental State: deliberate, aware of the sequence of events leading to his retention

Intended Outcome: Provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Use of knowledge and information gained during the plaintiff engagement to the advantage of the defendant
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (2)
  • Duty to Protect Confidential Information of a Former Client
  • Duty to Obtain Consent of Former Client (Section III.4.b)
Required Capabilities:
Forensic engineering analysis
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty to Protect Confidential Information of a Former Client; Duty to Obtain Consent of Former Client (Section III.4.b)
  • requiresCapability: Forensic engineering analysis
  • initiates: Conflict of Interest; Breach of Trust and Loyalty to Former Client
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A agrees to provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for Attorney X, the opposing party's counsel in the same legal proceeding, without consent of his former client.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: After termination by Attorney Z, end of the factual timeline
  • eventRoleContext content: Forensic Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate, aware of the sequence of events leading to his retention
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Use of knowledge and information gained during the plaintiff engagement to the advantage of the defendant
  • textReferences content: Engineer A agrees to provide the report.; Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a "separate and independent" report for the defendant in this case.; His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Adverse_Party_Engagement_Acceptance",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.494526+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A agrees to provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for Attorney X, the opposing party\u0027s counsel in the same legal proceeding, without consent of his former client.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Forensic Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Use of knowledge and information gained during the plaintiff engagement to the advantage of the defendant"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, aware of the sequence of events leading to his retention",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Conflict of Interest",
    "Breach of Trust and Loyalty to Former Client"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide a separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report for the defendant",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Forensic engineering analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After termination by Attorney Z, end of the factual timeline",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A agrees to provide the report.",
    "Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a \"separate and independent\" report for the defendant in this case.",
    "His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty to Protect Confidential Information of a Former Client",
    "Duty to Obtain Consent of Former Client (Section III.4.b)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance"
}
Extracted Events (5)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: During the first engagement, Engineer A gained access to information and documents made available by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative manner, creating a lasting duty of trust and loyalty.

Temporal Marker: Throughout Engineer A's first analysis for Attorney Z interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Confidential Information Held
  • Duty of Trust and Loyalty to Former Client

Caused By Action: Action_Initial_Engagement_Acceptance

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Initial_Engagement_Acceptance
  • initiates: Confidential Information Held; Duty of Trust and Loyalty to Former Client
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: During the first engagement, Engineer A gained access to information and documents made available by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative manner, creating a lasting duty of trust and loyalty.
  • temporalMarker content: Throughout Engineer A's first analysis for Attorney Z
  • textReferences content: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner; he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Event_Confidential_Information_Access",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495387+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Initial_Engagement_Acceptance",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "During the first engagement, Engineer A gained access to information and documents made available by the plaintiff and plaintiff\u0027s attorney in a cooperative manner, creating a lasting duty of trust and loyalty.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Confidential Information Held",
    "Duty of Trust and Loyalty to Former Client"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Throughout Engineer A\u0027s first analysis for Attorney Z",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff\u0027s attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner",
    "he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Confidential Information Access"
}

Description: Engineer A's review and analysis produced results indicating that the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault, making a report favorable to the plaintiff impossible.

Temporal Marker: Following Engineer A's review and analysis for Attorney Z instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Analysis Unfavorable to Client
  • Fault Attribution to Plaintiff

Caused By Action: Action_Initial_Engagement_Acceptance

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Initial_Engagement_Acceptance
  • initiates: Analysis Unfavorable to Client; Fault Attribution to Plaintiff
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A's review and analysis produced results indicating that the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault, making a report favorable to the plaintiff impossible.
  • temporalMarker content: Following Engineer A's review and analysis for Attorney Z
  • textReferences content: Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Event_Adverse_Analysis_Finding",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495339+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Initial_Engagement_Acceptance",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s review and analysis produced results indicating that the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault, making a report favorable to the plaintiff impossible.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Analysis Unfavorable to Client",
    "Fault Attribution to Plaintiff"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following Engineer A\u0027s review and analysis for Attorney Z",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Adverse Analysis Finding"
}

Description: Following termination of his services by Attorney Z, Engineer A's fee was paid in full, settling the financial side of the first engagement.

Temporal Marker: Upon termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • First Engagement Financially Settled
Terminates (1)
  • Outstanding Fee Owed

Caused By Action: Action_Service_Termination

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Service_Termination
  • initiates: First Engagement Financially Settled
  • terminates: Outstanding Fee Owed
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Following termination of his services by Attorney Z, Engineer A's fee was paid in full, settling the financial side of the first engagement.
  • temporalMarker content: Upon termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z
  • textReferences content: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Event_Fee_Payment_Completion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495415+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Service_Termination",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "Following termination of his services by Attorney Z, Engineer A\u0027s fee was paid in full, settling the financial side of the first engagement.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "First Engagement Financially Settled"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Upon termination of Engineer A\u0027s services by Attorney Z",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Outstanding Fee Owed"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s services are terminated and his fee is paid in full."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Fee Payment Completion"
}

Description: Attorney X, representing the defendant, learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report supporting Attorney Z's case, which prompted the effort to retain him.

Temporal Marker: Thereafter, following termination of Engineer A's services instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Defendant Awareness of Adverse Finding

Caused By Action: Action_Service_Termination

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Service_Termination
  • initiates: Defendant Awareness of Adverse Finding
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Attorney X, representing the defendant, learned of the circumstances of Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report supporting Attorney Z's case, which prompted the effort to retain him.
  • temporalMarker content: Thereafter, following termination of Engineer A's services
  • textReferences content: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Event_Adverse_Party_Awareness",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495440+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Service_Termination",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.88",
  "proeth:description": "Attorney X, representing the defendant, learned of the circumstances of Engineer A\u0027s unwillingness to provide a report supporting Attorney Z\u0027s case, which prompted the effort to retain him.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Defendant Awareness of Adverse Finding"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Thereafter, following termination of Engineer A\u0027s services",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A\u0027s unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z\u0027s case"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Adverse Party Awareness"
}

Description: Once Engineer A agreed to work for the defendant's attorney, his prior access to the plaintiff's information made a genuinely separate and independent report impossible, placing him in a compromised position for the duration of the proceeding.

Temporal Marker: Upon Engineer A's agreement to provide the report for Attorney X interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Compromised Independence
  • Conflict of Interest

Caused By Action: Action_Adverse_Party_Engagement_Acceptance

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Adverse_Party_Engagement_Acceptance
  • initiates: Compromised Independence; Conflict of Interest
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Once Engineer A agreed to work for the defendant's attorney, his prior access to the plaintiff's information made a genuinely separate and independent report impossible, placing him in a compromised position for the duration of the proceeding.
  • temporalMarker content: Upon Engineer A's agreement to provide the report for Attorney X
  • textReferences content: Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a "separate and independent" report for the defendant in this case.; This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would "blot all" of that information from his mind and start from "square one" in performing his engineering and safety analysis report.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 11
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Event_Independence_Compromise",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495463+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#Action_Adverse_Party_Engagement_Acceptance",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "Once Engineer A agreed to work for the defendant\u0027s attorney, his prior access to the plaintiff\u0027s information made a genuinely separate and independent report impossible, placing him in a compromised position for the duration of the proceeding.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Compromised Independence",
    "Conflict of Interest"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Upon Engineer A\u0027s agreement to provide the report for Attorney X",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 11,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Nor do we believe that latter point that Engineer A would be capable of providing a \"separate and independent\" report for the defendant in this case.",
    "This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would \"blot all\" of that information from his mind and start from \"square one\" in performing his engineering and safety analysis report."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Independence Compromise"
}
Causal Chains (7)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's communication that he could not support the plaintiff's case
  • Attorney Z's need for a favorable expert report
  • Attorney Z's discretion to terminate the consultant
Sufficient Factors:
  • Disclosure of findings incompatible with the plaintiff's legal position, combined with Attorney Z's advocacy role
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A produced a report favorable to the plaintiff, Attorney Z would have had no reason to terminate his services
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Attorney Z
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Adverse Finding Disclosure
    Engineer A communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
  2. Service Termination
    Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services
  3. Fee Payment Completion
    Engineer A's fee is paid in full, settling the first engagement
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Adverse Finding Disclosure
  • effect: Service Termination
  • responsibleAgent: Attorney Z
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's communication that he could not support the plaintiff's case; Attorney Z's need for a favorable expert report; Attorney Z's discretion to terminate the consultant
  • sufficientFactors content: Disclosure of findings incompatible with the plaintiff's legal position, combined with Attorney Z's advocacy role
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A produced a report favorable to the plaintiff, Attorney Z would have had no reason to terminate his services
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew Engineer A's analysis would not support the plaintiff and that the report would suggest the plaintiff was at fault
  • interveningFactors content: Legal strategy needs of the plaintiff's case
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Finding Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Service Termination', 'proeth:description': "Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Fee Payment Completion', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's fee is paid in full, settling the first engagement"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495576+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew Engineer A\u0027s analysis would not support the plaintiff and that the report would suggest the plaintiff was at fault",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u0027s services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Finding Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney Z terminates Engineer A\u0027s services",
      "proeth:element": "Service Termination",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s fee is paid in full, settling the first engagement",
      "proeth:element": "Fee Payment Completion",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Adverse Finding Disclosure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A produced a report favorable to the plaintiff, Attorney Z would have had no reason to terminate his services",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Service Termination",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Legal strategy needs of the plaintiff\u0027s case"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s communication that he could not support the plaintiff\u0027s case",
    "Attorney Z\u0027s need for a favorable expert report",
    "Attorney Z\u0027s discretion to terminate the consultant"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Attorney Z",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Disclosure of findings incompatible with the plaintiff\u0027s legal position, combined with Attorney Z\u0027s advocacy role"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney Z
  • Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney sharing information and documents cooperatively
  • Engineer A's role requiring review and analysis of case materials
Sufficient Factors:
  • Acceptance of the consulting engagement combined with the cooperative provision of case documents by the plaintiff's side
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A not accepted the engagement with Attorney Z, he would never have gained access to the plaintiff's confidential information and documents
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Initial Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report supporting the plaintiff
  2. Cooperative Information Sharing
    Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney make information and documents available in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
  3. Confidential Information Access
    Engineer A gains access to privileged case information throughout his first analysis
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Initial Engagement Acceptance
  • effect: Confidential Information Access
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's acceptance of retention by Attorney Z; Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney sharing information and documents cooperatively; Engineer A's role requiring review and analysis of case materials
  • sufficientFactors content: Acceptance of the consulting engagement combined with the cooperative provision of case documents by the plaintiff's side
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A not accepted the engagement with Attorney Z, he would never have gained access to the plaintiff's confidential information and documents
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew he was being retained as a consultant to support the plaintiff and would receive privileged case materials in that role
  • interveningFactors content: Attorney Z's decision to share case materials; Plaintiff's cooperation in providing documents
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Initial Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report supporting the plaintiff'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Cooperative Information Sharing', 'proeth:description': "Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney make information and documents available in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Confidential Information Access', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A gains access to privileged case information throughout his first analysis'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495521+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew he was being retained as a consultant to support the plaintiff and would receive privileged case materials in that role",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff\u0027s attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report supporting the plaintiff",
      "proeth:element": "Initial Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Plaintiff and plaintiff\u0027s attorney make information and documents available in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner",
      "proeth:element": "Cooperative Information Sharing",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A gains access to privileged case information throughout his first analysis",
      "proeth:element": "Confidential Information Access",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Initial Engagement Acceptance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A not accepted the engagement with Attorney Z, he would never have gained access to the plaintiff\u0027s confidential information and documents",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Confidential Information Access",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Attorney Z\u0027s decision to share case materials",
    "Plaintiff\u0027s cooperation in providing documents"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s acceptance of retention by Attorney Z",
    "Plaintiff and plaintiff\u0027s attorney sharing information and documents cooperatively",
    "Engineer A\u0027s role requiring review and analysis of case materials"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Acceptance of the consulting engagement combined with the cooperative provision of case documents by the plaintiff\u0027s side"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Analysis results indicating plaintiff fault
  • Engineer A's commitment to objective reporting
  • Engineer A's completion of the review and analysis
Sufficient Factors:
  • Adverse analysis results combined with Engineer A's professional integrity in refusing to distort findings
Counterfactual Test: Had the analysis favored the plaintiff, Engineer A would have provided the requested report and there would have been no disclosure of an inability to support the plaintiff
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Adverse Analysis Finding
    Engineer A's review and analysis produce results indicating the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault
  2. Adverse Finding Disclosure
    Engineer A determines and communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Adverse Analysis Finding
  • effect: Adverse Finding Disclosure
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
  • necessaryFactors content: Analysis results indicating plaintiff fault; Engineer A's commitment to objective reporting; Engineer A's completion of the review and analysis
  • sufficientFactors content: Adverse analysis results combined with Engineer A's professional integrity in refusing to distort findings
  • counterfactual content: Had the analysis favored the plaintiff, Engineer A would have provided the requested report and there would have been no disclosure of an inability to support the plaintiff
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew his findings were unfavorable to the client who retained him and knew his ethical duty to be objective in professional reports
  • interveningFactors content: Underlying facts of the accident determining fault
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Analysis Finding', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's review and analysis produce results indicating the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Finding Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A determines and communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495553+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew his findings were unfavorable to the client who retained him and knew his ethical duty to be objective in professional reports",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Following Engineer A\u0027s review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s review and analysis produce results indicating the plaintiff, not the defendant, was at fault",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Analysis Finding",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A determines and communicates that he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Finding Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Adverse Analysis Finding",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the analysis favored the plaintiff, Engineer A would have provided the requested report and there would have been no disclosure of an inability to support the plaintiff",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Adverse Finding Disclosure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Underlying facts of the accident determining fault"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Analysis results indicating plaintiff fault",
    "Engineer A\u0027s commitment to objective reporting",
    "Engineer A\u0027s completion of the review and analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Adverse analysis results combined with Engineer A\u0027s professional integrity in refusing to distort findings"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Attorney X learning of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination
  • Attorney X's belief that Engineer A's findings would favor the defendant
  • Engineer A's availability after termination
Sufficient Factors:
  • Knowledge that Engineer A's analysis suggested plaintiff fault, combined with Attorney X's strategic interest in a favorable expert
Counterfactual Test: Had Attorney X not learned of the circumstances of the termination, he would have had no basis or motive to seek out Engineer A specifically
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Attorney X
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Service Termination
    Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services after the adverse finding
  2. Adverse Party Awareness
    Attorney X learns of the circumstances of Engineer A's unwillingness to support the plaintiff's case
  3. Retention Solicitation
    Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A for an 'independent and separate' report for the defense
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Adverse Party Awareness
  • effect: Retention Solicitation
  • responsibleAgent: Attorney X
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
  • necessaryFactors content: Attorney X learning of the circumstances of Engineer A's termination; Attorney X's belief that Engineer A's findings would favor the defendant; Engineer A's availability after termination
  • sufficientFactors content: Knowledge that Engineer A's analysis suggested plaintiff fault, combined with Attorney X's strategic interest in a favorable expert
  • counterfactual content: Had Attorney X not learned of the circumstances of the termination, he would have had no basis or motive to seek out Engineer A specifically
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew Engineer A had been terminated because his findings would favor the defendant; 'the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable'
  • interveningFactors content: Leakage of the circumstances of the termination
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Service Termination', 'proeth:description': "Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services after the adverse finding"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Party Awareness', 'proeth:description': "Attorney X learns of the circumstances of Engineer A's unwillingness to support the plaintiff's case"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Retention Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A for an 'independent and separate' report for the defense"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495597+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew Engineer A had been terminated because his findings would favor the defendant; \u0027the real reason for the defendant\u0027s attorney\u0027s hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Thereafter, Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A\u0027s unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z\u0027s case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney Z terminates Engineer A\u0027s services after the adverse finding",
      "proeth:element": "Service Termination",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney X learns of the circumstances of Engineer A\u0027s unwillingness to support the plaintiff\u0027s case",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Party Awareness",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A for an \u0027independent and separate\u0027 report for the defense",
      "proeth:element": "Retention Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Adverse Party Awareness",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Attorney X not learned of the circumstances of the termination, he would have had no basis or motive to seek out Engineer A specifically",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Retention Solicitation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Leakage of the circumstances of the termination"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Attorney X learning of the circumstances of Engineer A\u0027s termination",
    "Attorney X\u0027s belief that Engineer A\u0027s findings would favor the defendant",
    "Engineer A\u0027s availability after termination"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Attorney X",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge that Engineer A\u0027s analysis suggested plaintiff fault, combined with Attorney X\u0027s strategic interest in a favorable expert"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report. Engineer A agrees to provide the report.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Attorney X's offer of retention
  • Engineer A's willingness to work for the adverse party in the same proceeding
  • Absence of consultation with or consent from the former client
Sufficient Factors:
  • Attorney X's solicitation combined with Engineer A's decision to accept despite awareness of the sequence of events
Counterfactual Test: Without Attorney X's solicitation, Engineer A would have had no opportunity to engage with the adverse party; had Engineer A declined, no ethical transgression would have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Retention Solicitation
    Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A knowing his findings favor the defendant
  2. Failure to Consult Former Client
    Engineer A does not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney Z, his former client
  3. Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A agrees to provide a 'separate and independent' report for the defense
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Retention Solicitation
  • effect: Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report. Engineer A agrees to provide the report.
  • necessaryFactors content: Attorney X's offer of retention; Engineer A's willingness to work for the adverse party in the same proceeding; Absence of consultation with or consent from the former client
  • sufficientFactors content: Attorney X's solicitation combined with Engineer A's decision to accept despite awareness of the sequence of events
  • counterfactual content: Without Attorney X's solicitation, Engineer A would have had no opportunity to engage with the adverse party; had Engineer A declined, no ethical transgression would have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: 'Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.'
  • interveningFactors content: Attorney X's strategic solicitation; Full payment of the prior fee creating an appearance of a concluded relationship
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Retention Solicitation', 'proeth:description': 'Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A knowing his findings favor the defendant'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Failure to Consult Former Client', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A does not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney Z, his former client'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A agrees to provide a 'separate and independent' report for the defense"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495617+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "\u0027Engineer A had to have been aware of the reasons why his services were being retained by virtue of the sequence of events.\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A\u0027s unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z\u0027s case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report. Engineer A agrees to provide the report.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A knowing his findings favor the defendant",
      "proeth:element": "Retention Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A does not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney Z, his former client",
      "proeth:element": "Failure to Consult Former Client",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A agrees to provide a \u0027separate and independent\u0027 report for the defense",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Retention Solicitation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Attorney X\u0027s solicitation, Engineer A would have had no opportunity to engage with the adverse party; had Engineer A declined, no ethical transgression would have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Attorney X\u0027s strategic solicitation",
    "Full payment of the prior fee creating an appearance of a concluded relationship"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Attorney X\u0027s offer of retention",
    "Engineer A\u0027s willingness to work for the adverse party in the same proceeding",
    "Absence of consultation with or consent from the former client"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Attorney X\u0027s solicitation combined with Engineer A\u0027s decision to accept despite awareness of the sequence of events"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would "blot all" of that information from his mind and start from "square one" in performing his engineering and safety analysis report.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidential information and documents
  • Engineer A's agreement to work for the adverse party in the same legal proceeding
  • Impossibility of mentally 'blotting out' previously acquired information
Sufficient Factors:
  • Prior confidential information access combined with acceptance of the adverse-party engagement within the same proceeding
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A declined Attorney X's retention, his prior knowledge would have posed no independence problem; the compromise arose only from the subsequent engagement ('His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.')
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Confidential Information Access
    Engineer A gains access to plaintiff's information and documents during the first engagement
  2. Service Termination
    Attorney Z terminates the engagement; fee is paid in full
  3. Retention Solicitation
    Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A because he believes the report will be favorable
  4. Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A agrees to provide a report for the defendant without consulting Attorney Z
  5. Independence Compromise
    Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's information makes a truly 'separate and independent' report impossible, breaching his duty of trust and loyalty
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance
  • effect: Independence Compromise
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would "blot all" of that information from his mind and start from "square one" in performing his engineering and safety analysis report.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's confidential information and documents; Engineer A's agreement to work for the adverse party in the same legal proceeding; Impossibility of mentally 'blotting out' previously acquired information
  • sufficientFactors content: Prior confidential information access combined with acceptance of the adverse-party engagement within the same proceeding
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A declined Attorney X's retention, his prior knowledge would have posed no independence problem; the compromise arose only from the subsequent engagement ('His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.')
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew he had received privileged information from the plaintiff's side and knew, by the sequence of events, why the defense wanted to hire him
  • interveningFactors content: Attorney X's motive to exploit Engineer A's known conclusions; Duration of duty of trust and loyalty lasting at least the legal proceeding
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Confidential Information Access', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A gains access to plaintiff's information and documents during the first engagement"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Service Termination', 'proeth:description': 'Attorney Z terminates the engagement; fee is paid in full'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Retention Solicitation', 'proeth:description': 'Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A because he believes the report will be favorable'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A agrees to provide a report for the defendant without consulting Attorney Z'}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Independence Compromise', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's prior access to plaintiff's information makes a truly 'separate and independent' report impossible, breaching his duty of trust and loyalty"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495636+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew he had received privileged information from the plaintiff\u0027s side and knew, by the sequence of events, why the defense wanted to hire him",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "This Board cannot accept the proposition that following the termination of his relationship with attorney for the plaintiff he would \"blot all\" of that information from his mind and start from \"square one\" in performing his engineering and safety analysis report.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A gains access to plaintiff\u0027s information and documents during the first engagement",
      "proeth:element": "Confidential Information Access",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney Z terminates the engagement; fee is paid in full",
      "proeth:element": "Service Termination",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney X seeks to retain Engineer A because he believes the report will be favorable",
      "proeth:element": "Retention Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A agrees to provide a report for the defendant without consulting Attorney Z",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s prior access to plaintiff\u0027s information makes a truly \u0027separate and independent\u0027 report impossible, breaching his duty of trust and loyalty",
      "proeth:element": "Independence Compromise",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A declined Attorney X\u0027s retention, his prior knowledge would have posed no independence problem; the compromise arose only from the subsequent engagement (\u0027His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.\u0027)",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Independence Compromise",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Attorney X\u0027s motive to exploit Engineer A\u0027s known conclusions",
    "Duration of duty of trust and loyalty lasting at least the legal proceeding"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s prior access to plaintiff\u0027s confidential information and documents",
    "Engineer A\u0027s agreement to work for the adverse party in the same legal proceeding",
    "Impossibility of mentally \u0027blotting out\u0027 previously acquired information"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Prior confidential information access combined with acceptance of the adverse-party engagement within the same proceeding"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard. At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of a continuing duty of trust and loyalty to the former client
  • Engineer A's omission of any consultation with Attorney Z
  • Acceptance of engagement adverse to the former client's interests
Sufficient Factors:
  • Accepting the adverse engagement without former-client consent, in the context of prior confidential access
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z and obtained consent, the ethical breach could have been avoided or mitigated, though the Board doubts a truly 'separate and independent' report was possible in any event
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Retention Solicitation
    Attorney X approaches Engineer A for a defense-side report
  2. Failure to Consult Former Client
    Engineer A does not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney Z or seek consent
  3. Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A agrees to provide the report for the defendant
  4. Independence Compromise
    Duty of trust and loyalty to the former client is breached for the duration of the legal proceeding
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Failure to Consult Former Client
  • effect: Independence Compromise
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard. At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of a continuing duty of trust and loyalty to the former client; Engineer A's omission of any consultation with Attorney Z; Acceptance of engagement adverse to the former client's interests
  • sufficientFactors content: Accepting the adverse engagement without former-client consent, in the context of prior confidential access
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z and obtained consent, the ethical breach could have been avoided or mitigated, though the Board doubts a truly 'separate and independent' report was possible in any event
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew of his prior relationship with Attorney Z and the ongoing legal proceeding; 'while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client'
  • interveningFactors content: Fee paid in full possibly suggesting the relationship was concluded; Possible naivete about Attorney X's motives, which the Board rejects as an excuse
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Retention Solicitation', 'proeth:description': 'Attorney X approaches Engineer A for a defense-side report'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Failure to Consult Former Client', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A does not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney Z or seek consent'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A agrees to provide the report for the defendant'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Independence Compromise', 'proeth:description': 'Duty of trust and loyalty to the former client is breached for the duration of the legal proceeding'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/172#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T19:22:13.495656+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew of his prior relationship with Attorney Z and the ongoing legal proceeding; \u0027while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Section III.4.b. is clear in this regard. At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorney X approaches Engineer A for a defense-side report",
      "proeth:element": "Retention Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A does not discuss the proposed engagement with Attorney Z or seek consent",
      "proeth:element": "Failure to Consult Former Client",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A agrees to provide the report for the defendant",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Party Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Duty of trust and loyalty to the former client is breached for the duration of the legal proceeding",
      "proeth:element": "Independence Compromise",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Failure to Consult Former Client",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z and obtained consent, the ethical breach could have been avoided or mitigated, though the Board doubts a truly \u0027separate and independent\u0027 report was possible in any event",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Independence Compromise",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Fee paid in full possibly suggesting the relationship was concluded",
    "Possible naivete about Attorney X\u0027s motives, which the Board rejects as an excuse"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of a continuing duty of trust and loyalty to the former client",
    "Engineer A\u0027s omission of any consultation with Attorney Z",
    "Acceptance of engagement adverse to the former client\u0027s interests"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Accepting the adverse engagement without former-client consent, in the context of prior confidential access"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (11)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer A's retention by Attorney Z before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's review and analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report... Fo... [more]
Engineer A's review and analysis before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's determination that he cannot provide a favorable report time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineer... [more]
Engineer A's determination of plaintiff's fault before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		termination of Engineer A's services and payment of fee time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to ... [more]
termination of Engineer A's services by Attorney Z before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Attorney X learning of the circumstances and seeking to retain Engineer A time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full. Thereafter, Attorney X... learns o... [more]
Attorney X seeking to retain Engineer A before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A agreeing to provide the report time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis re... [more]
Engineer A's access to plaintiff's information and documents during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer A's first engagement/analysis for Attorney Z time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer A throughout his first analysis had access to information, documents, etc., that were made ... [more]
prior BER decisions (74-2, 76-3, 82-2, 82-6) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		the present case analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		we think it would be appropriate to examine earlier BER decisions relating to the issues present her... [more]
engineer's resignation from conflicting position before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		agreeing to perform services for a client with a conflicting interest (recommended ordering) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		it may be appropriate for an engineer to first resign a particular position, such as consultant to a... [more]
Engineer A's duty of trust and loyalty to the former client (plaintiff) during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		the legal proceeding (personal injury case) time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding
Engineer A's ethical conduct finishes
Entity1 and Entity2 end at the same time, Entity2 starts first 		termination of relationship with Attorney Z time:intervalFinishes
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalFinishes 		Had Engineer A ceased his involvement in the case following the termination of his relationship with... [more]
termination of relationship with Attorney Z before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's transgression (subsequent involvement with Attorney X) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		His transgressions were a result of his subsequent involvement with Attorney X.
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3