Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 172: Objectivity of Engineer Retained as Expert

R Roles
1
Classes
3
Individuals
S States
0
Classes
5
Individuals
Rs Resources
0
Classes
6
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

15 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
1
Review
Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
C172
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A legal professional client role in which an attorney representing a plaintiff in personal injury litigation retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert or technical consultant to evaluate the case and provide testimony in support of the plaintiff's position, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations of objectivity and independence.
Inherited from Plaintiff-SideLitigationRetainingAttorney · note
A legal professional client role in which an attorney representing a plaintiff in product liability litigation retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert or technical consultant, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations regarding independence, objectivity, and disclosure of prior relationships with adverse parties.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A 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"
"Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full"
Confidence: 0.8
Importance: high
Role Category: provider_client
Distinguishing Features:
  • Represents plaintiff party specifically
  • Retains forensic engineer for litigation support
  • Engagement terminated when engineer cannot provide favorable report
Professional Scope: Legal representation and forensic expert engagement in personal injury litigation
Obligations Generated:
  • Define scope of forensic engagement
  • Pay agreed fees upon termination
  • Respect engineer's professional independence and objectivity
[facts] "Engineer A 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"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A 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; Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
  • importance content: high
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Represents plaintiff party specifically; Retains forensic engineer for litigation support; Engagement terminated when engineer cannot provide favorable report
  • professionalScope content: Legal representation and forensic expert engagement in personal injury litigation
  • obligationsGenerated content: Define scope of forensic engagement; Pay agreed fees upon termination; Respect engineer's professional independence and objectivity
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Roles Individuals
3
changed
Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
Linked
Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
C172
Text References:
"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"
"Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.93
Role Class: Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
Role Category: provider_client
Case Involvement: Retained Engineer A to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case; terminated Engineer A's services (with full fee) when Engineer A could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff.
Party represented: Plaintiff
Case type: Personal injury
Engagement outcome: Terminated Engineer A upon unfavorable analysis
Retained expert: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
[facts] "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"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • attributes: {'party_represented': 'Plaintiff', 'case_type': 'Personal injury', 'engagement_outcome': 'Terminated Engineer A upon unfavorable analysis'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'retained_expert', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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; Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
  • importance content: high
  • roleClass content: Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • caseInvolvement content: Retained Engineer A to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case; terminated Engineer A's services (with full fee) when Engineer A could not produce a report favorable to the plaintiff.
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
changed
Attorney X Defense Retaining Attorney
Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
Linked
Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
C172
Text References:
"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"
"seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report"
"Engineer A agrees to provide the report"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.95
Role Class: Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
Role Category: provider_client
Case Involvement: Representing the defendant in the same personal injury case; learned of Engineer A's prior termination by plaintiff's attorney; sought to retain Engineer A to provide an independent forensic engineering and safety analysis report for the defense.
Party represented: Defendant
Case type: Personal injury
Engagement sought: Independent forensic engineering and safety analysis report
Seeks to retain: Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Adverse party attorney: Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
[facts] "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"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • attributes: {'party_represented': 'Defendant', 'case_type': 'Personal injury', 'engagement_sought': 'Independent forensic engineering and safety analysis report'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'seeks_to_retain', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides'}; {'type': 'adverse_party_attorney', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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; seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report; Engineer A agrees to provide the report
  • importance content: high
  • roleClass content: Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • caseInvolvement content: Representing the defendant in the same personal injury case; learned of Engineer A's prior termination by plaintiff's attorney; sought to retain Engineer A to provide an independent forensic engineering and safety analysis report for the defense.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
Engineer A Forensic Expert Switching Sides
Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
Linked
Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
C172
Text References:
"Engineer A is a forensic engineer"
"He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff"
"Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff"
"Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full"
"Attorney X…seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report"
"Engineer A agrees to provide the report"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.97
Role Class: Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
Role Category: provider_client
Case Involvement: Initially retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; determined he could not provide a report favorable to the plaintiff; was terminated with full fee paid; subsequently agreed to provide an independent report for the defendant's attorney (Attorney X), the paradigm case of switching sides in litigation.
License: Professional Engineer (forensic specialist)
Specialty: Engineering and safety analysis
Termination status: Terminated by Attorney Z with fee paid in full
Subsequent engagement: Agreed to provide report for Attorney X (defense)
Former client: Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney
Prospective client: Attorney X Defense Retaining Attorney
[facts] "Engineer A is a forensic engineer"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (forensic specialist)', 'specialty': 'Engineering and safety analysis', 'termination_status': 'Terminated by Attorney Z with fee paid in full', 'subsequent_engagement': 'Agreed to provide report for Attorney X (defense)'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney'}; {'type': 'prospective_client', 'target': 'Attorney X Defense Retaining Attorney'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is a forensic engineer; He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff; Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff; Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full; Attorney X…seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report; Engineer A agrees to provide the report
  • importance content: high
  • roleClass content: Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • caseInvolvement content: Initially retained by plaintiff's attorney (Attorney Z) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; determined he could not provide a report favorable to the plaintiff; was terminated with full fee paid; subsequently agreed to provide an independent report for the defendant's attorney (Attorney X), the paradigm case of switching sides in litigation.
  • confidence assessment: 0.97

S States

States Classes
0
No new states classes were identified in this section.
States Individuals
5
No new states classes were discovered - the 5 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
changed
Engineer A Initial Plaintiff-Side Forensic Engagement
Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
Linked
Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
C172
Text References:
"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"
"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..."
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
Subject: Engineer A's retention by Attorney Z as forensic expert for plaintiff
Active Period: From initial retention by Attorney Z through termination of services
Triggering Event: Attorney Z retains Engineer A to provide engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of plaintiff
Terminated By: Engineer A's services terminated after findings unfavorable to plaintiff
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Attorney Z
  • Plaintiff
  • Defendant
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "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"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Attorney Z; Plaintiff; Defendant
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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; 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
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
  • subject content: Engineer A's retention by Attorney Z as forensic expert for plaintiff
  • activePeriod content: From initial retention by Attorney Z through termination of services
  • triggeringEvent content: Attorney Z retains Engineer A to provide engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of plaintiff
  • terminatedBy content: Engineer A's services terminated after findings unfavorable to plaintiff
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Linked
Employment Terminated
C172
Text References:
"Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Employment Terminated
Subject: Engineer A's concluded engagement with Attorney Z / plaintiff side
Active Period: From termination of services through subsequent cross-side retention
Triggering Event: Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services after Engineer A determines he cannot provide a favorable report; fee paid in full
Terminated By: Engineer A agrees to provide report for defendant's attorney (new engagement begins)
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Attorney Z
  • Plaintiff
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Attorney Z; Plaintiff
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Employment Terminated
  • subject content: Engineer A's concluded engagement with Attorney Z / plaintiff side
  • activePeriod content: From termination of services through subsequent cross-side retention
  • triggeringEvent content: Attorney Z terminates Engineer A's services after Engineer A determines he cannot provide a favorable report; fee paid in full
  • terminatedBy content: Engineer A agrees to provide report for defendant's attorney (new engagement begins)
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Personal Injury Case Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
Linked
Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
C172
Text References:
"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"
"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 ..."
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.91
State Class: Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
Subject: The ongoing personal injury litigation between plaintiff and defendant creating structural pressure on retained experts
Active Period: Throughout the entire case, from initial retention of Engineer A through the cross-side engagement
Triggering Event: Personal injury lawsuit initiated, creating adversarial context in which each attorney seeks expert support for their respective client's position
Terminated By: Resolution of the litigation
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Attorney Z
  • Attorney X
  • Plaintiff
  • Defendant
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "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"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Attorney Z; Attorney X; Plaintiff; Defendant
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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; 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
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
  • subject content: The ongoing personal injury litigation between plaintiff and defendant creating structural pressure on retained experts
  • activePeriod content: Throughout the entire case, from initial retention of Engineer A through the cross-side engagement
  • triggeringEvent content: Personal injury lawsuit initiated, creating adversarial context in which each attorney seeks expert support for their respective client's position
  • terminatedBy content: Resolution of the litigation
  • confidence assessment: 0.91
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Linked
Confidential Information Held
C172
Text References:
"Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff"
"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"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.93
State Class: Confidential Information Held
Subject: Engineer A's possession of confidential case information, strategy, and analysis obtained during plaintiff-side engagement
Active Period: From initial retention by Attorney Z onward; persists after termination
Triggering Event: Engineer A's review and analysis of plaintiff's case materials during engagement with Attorney Z
Terminated By: Not terminated, confidential information obligations persist indefinitely
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Attorney Z
  • Plaintiff
  • Attorney X
  • Defendant
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "Following Engineer A's review and analysis, Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Attorney Z; Plaintiff; Attorney X; Defendant
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences 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; 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
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Confidential Information Held
  • subject content: Engineer A's possession of confidential case information, strategy, and analysis obtained during plaintiff-side engagement
  • activePeriod content: From initial retention by Attorney Z onward; persists after termination
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A's review and analysis of plaintiff's case materials during engagement with Attorney Z
  • terminatedBy content: Not terminated, confidential information obligations persist indefinitely
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
Linked
Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
C172
Text References:
"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 ..."
"Engineer A agrees to provide the report"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.97
State Class: Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
Subject: Engineer A being retained by defendant's Attorney X after having conducted confidential review for plaintiff's Attorney Z in the same proceeding
Active Period: From Attorney X's approach to Engineer A through Engineer A's agreement to provide the report
Triggering Event: Attorney X learns of Engineer A's prior plaintiff-side engagement and termination, then seeks to retain Engineer A for the opposing side in the same case
Terminated By: Not yet terminated. Engineer A agrees to provide the report, making this an active and ongoing state
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Attorney X
  • Defendant
  • Attorney Z
  • Plaintiff
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "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 ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Attorney X; Defendant; Attorney Z; Plaintiff
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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; Engineer A agrees to provide the report
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
  • subject content: Engineer A being retained by defendant's Attorney X after having conducted confidential review for plaintiff's Attorney Z in the same proceeding
  • activePeriod content: From Attorney X's approach to Engineer A through Engineer A's agreement to provide the report
  • triggeringEvent content: Attorney X learns of Engineer A's prior plaintiff-side engagement and termination, then seeks to retain Engineer A for the opposing side in the same case
  • terminatedBy content: Not yet terminated. Engineer A agrees to provide the report, making this an active and ongoing state
  • confidence assessment: 0.97
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
0
No new resources classes were identified in this section.
Resources Individuals
6
No new resources classes were discovered - the 6 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
changed
Sequential-Party-Representation-Ethics-Standard-Instance
Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
Linked
Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
C172
Text References:
"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 ..."
"Engineer A agrees to provide the report"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.92
Resource Class: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
Document Title: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
Version: Current
Used By: Engineer A when deciding whether to accept the engagement from Attorney X
Used In Context: Governs whether Engineer A may ethically accept retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) after having been retained and terminated by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) in the same case
[facts] "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 ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A when deciding whether to accept the engagement from Attorney X
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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; Engineer A agrees to provide the report
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
  • documentTitle content: Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
  • version content: Current
  • usedInContext content: Governs whether Engineer A may ethically accept retention by Attorney X (defendant's counsel) after having been retained and terminated by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) in the same case
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
changed
Forensic-Engineering-Report-Integrity-Standard-Instance
Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
Linked
Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
C172
Text References:
"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..."
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.9
Resource Class: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
Document Title: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
Version: Current
Used By: Engineer A when determining he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
Used In Context: Governs Engineer A's obligation to produce an accurate, objective, and complete forensic engineering and safety analysis report regardless of which party retained him, and his refusal to produce a report whose conclusions are dictated by client preference
[facts] "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..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A when determining he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
  • documentTitle content: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
  • version content: Current
  • usedInContext content: Governs Engineer A's obligation to produce an accurate, objective, and complete forensic engineering and safety analysis report regardless of which party retained him, and his refusal to produce a report whose conclusions are dictated by client preference
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
changed
Linked
Professional Code
C172
Text References:
"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..."
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.95
Resource Class: Professional Code
Document Title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
Created By: National Society of Professional Engineers
Version: Current
Used By: Engineer A in determining he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
Used In Context: Governs Engineer A's obligation to provide honest, objective engineering analysis regardless of which party retained him, and his duty not to issue reports whose conclusions are predetermined by client interest
[facts] "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..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A in determining he cannot provide a report favorable to the plaintiff
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Professional Code
  • documentTitle content: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
  • createdBy content: National Society of Professional Engineers
  • version content: Current
  • usedInContext content: Governs Engineer A's obligation to provide honest, objective engineering analysis regardless of which party retained him, and his duty not to issue reports whose conclusions are predetermined by client interest
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
Adversarial-Proceeding-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard-Instance
Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
Linked
Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
C172
Text References:
"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 ..."
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.91
Resource Class: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
Document Title: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
Version: Current
Used By: Engineer A and Attorney X when evaluating the propriety of the new engagement
Used In Context: Governs Engineer A's duty to manage potential conflicts arising from prior engagement by opposing counsel in the same litigation, including limits on loyalty to former client Attorney Z and protection of confidential information gained during that engagement
[facts] "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 ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A and Attorney X when evaluating the propriety of the new engagement
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
  • documentTitle content: Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
  • version content: Current
  • usedInContext content: Governs Engineer A's duty to manage potential conflicts arising from prior engagement by opposing counsel in the same litigation, including limits on loyalty to former client Attorney Z and protection of confidential information gained during that engagement
  • confidence assessment: 0.91
changed
Engineer-Confidentiality-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard-Instance
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
Linked
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
C172
Text References:
"Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full"
"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"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.89
Resource Class: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
Document Title: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
Version: Current
Used By: Engineer A in evaluating obligations to former client Attorney Z after services were terminated
Used In Context: Governs whether Engineer A may use or disclose information obtained during his engagement with Attorney Z when subsequently working for Attorney X in the same case, and the duration of confidentiality obligations after termination
[facts] "Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A in evaluating obligations to former client Attorney Z after services were terminated
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full; 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
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
  • documentTitle content: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional consensus
  • version content: Current
  • usedInContext content: Governs whether Engineer A may use or disclose information obtained during his engagement with Attorney Z when subsequently working for Attorney X in the same case, and the duration of confidentiality obligations after termination
  • confidence assessment: 0.89
changed
Linked
BER Case Precedent
C172
Text References:
"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 ..."
"Engineer A agrees to provide the report"
Importance: medium
Confidence: 0.82
Resource Class: BER Case Precedent
Document Title: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Forensic Engineer Sequential Party Representation
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Version: Various
Used By: Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in analogical reasoning about the propriety of the switch
Used In Context: Prior BER decisions addressing whether a forensic engineer who was retained and then released by one party in litigation may subsequently be retained by the opposing party in the same case provide analogical reasoning for evaluating Engineer A's situation
[facts] "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 ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in analogical reasoning about the propriety of the switch
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • 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; Engineer A agrees to provide the report
  • importance content: medium
  • resourceClass content: BER Case Precedent
  • documentTitle content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Forensic Engineer Sequential Party Representation
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
  • version content: Various
  • usedInContext content: Prior BER decisions addressing whether a forensic engineer who was retained and then released by one party in litigation may subsequently be retained by the opposing party in the same case provide analogical reasoning for evaluating Engineer A's situation
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue