Step 4: Full View

Entities, provisions, decisions, and narrative

Back to Case
Expert Witness—Discovery of New Data Following Submission of Report
Step 4 of 5

150

Entities

5

Provisions

1

Precedents

13

Questions

16

Conclusions

Phase Lag

Transformation
Phase Lag Delayed consequences reveal obligations not initially apparent
Engineer A's original report was submitted and acted upon (relied on in settlement negotiations) under one set of factual assumptions; a subsequent discovery event (inaccurate data) reveals that the original conclusions may be wrong, triggering a retrospective, immediate disclosure obligation. The Board treats this discovery-triggered duty as activating instantly regardless of prior monitoring obligations, consistent with a phase-lag structure where consequences/obligations surface only after the original act is complete.
Full Entity Graph
Loading...
Context: 0 Normative: 0 Temporal: 0 Synthesis: 0
Filter:
Building graph...
Entity Types
Synthesis Reasoning Flow
Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chain

The board's deliberative chain: which code provisions informed which ethical questions, and how those questions were resolved. Toggle "Show Entities" to see which entities each provision applies to.

Nodes:
■ Provision (e.g., I.1.) ◆ Question: Board = board-explicit, Impl = implicit, Tens = principle tension, Theo = theoretical, CF = counterfactual ▬ Conclusion: Board = board-explicit, Resp = question response, Ext = analytical extension, Synth = principle synthesis ▬ Entity (hidden by default)
Edges:
→ informs → answered by → applies to
Provisions (5)
View Extraction

All provisions in play for this case: the union of board-stated references and analysis-found citations (see each provision's provenance badge). The OntServe case page's Cited NSPE Provisions panel shows the subset actually cited by the committed conclusions, so its count can be lower.

II.3.a board + analysis Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 18)
Obligation
Engineer A Report Objectivity Duty
Requires objectivity and truthfulness in reports consistent with this duty
Action
Report Submission
Requires reports to be objective truthful and include all relevant information with proper dating
State
Post Report Inaccurate Data Discovery
Requires engineers to include all relevant information once new data is discovered
Obligation (3)
  • Engineer A Report Objectivity Duty
    Requires objectivity and truthfulness in reports consistent with this duty
  • Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty
    Requires including all relevant and pertinent information such as corrected data
  • Engineer A Truthful Expert Reporting Duty
    Mandates objectivity and truthfulness in professional testimony
Action (2)
  • Report Submission
    Requires reports to be objective truthful and include all relevant information with proper dating
  • Forensic Investigation
    Governs the completeness and accuracy of findings that feed into professional reports
State (3)
  • Post Report Inaccurate Data Discovery
    Requires engineers to include all relevant information once new data is discovered
  • Inaccurate Report Basis
    Report must be truthful and current, so an inaccurate basis violates this duty
  • Undisclosed Corrected Data For Attorney X
    Corrected data must be disclosed to maintain truthful and complete testimony
Constraint (1)
  • Engineer A Inaccurate Report Non-Deception
    Requires the report to be truthful and include all relevant information, directly relating to the obligation not to leave it deceptive.
Principle (3)
  • Honesty in Forensic Report
    Requires objectivity and truthfulness in reports which directly relates to the honesty principle in the forensic report
  • Honesty in Forensic Expert Reports
    Directly requires that reports include all relevant and current information consistent with truthful reporting
  • Integrity in Forensic Expert Services
    Mandates objectivity and inclusion of pertinent information reflecting integrity in forensic services
Role (1)
  • Engineer A Forensic Engineer
    Engineer A must be objective and truthful and include all relevant information in the forensic report and testimony
Event (1)
  • Data Inaccuracy Discovery
    Engineer must include newly discovered relevant data in the report to remain truthful and complete
Resource (1)
  • BER Case 95-5
    Both address the duty of an expert witness to provide complete and truthful information in reports and testimony.
Capability (3)
  • Engineer A Material Fact Disclosure
    Requires including all relevant information in reports which directly mandates disclosing the newly discovered inaccurate data
  • Engineer A Report Objectivity Maintenance
    Requires objectivity and truthfulness in professional reports
  • Engineer A Cause Conclusion Judgment
    Requires that conclusions in reports be truthful and include all pertinent information
II.3.b board + analysis Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 4)
Role
Engineer A Forensic Engineer
Engineer A must ensure technical opinions expressed are founded on complete facts and competence
Resource
BER Case 95-5
Both concern the expectation that an engineering expert base technical opinions on factual knowledge and competence.
Capability
Engineer A Cause Conclusion Judgment
Technical opinions must be founded on knowledge of facts which is compromised by the inaccurate data
Role (1)
  • Engineer A Forensic Engineer
    Engineer A must ensure technical opinions expressed are founded on complete facts and competence
Resource (1)
  • BER Case 95-5
    Both concern the expectation that an engineering expert base technical opinions on factual knowledge and competence.
Capability (2)
  • Engineer A Cause Conclusion Judgment
    Technical opinions must be founded on knowledge of facts which is compromised by the inaccurate data
  • Engineer A Forensic Fact Gathering
    Expressing technical opinions requires competence grounded in factual investigation
III.1.a board + analysis Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 13)
Obligation
Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty
Requires disclosing that data was inaccurate rather than distorting facts
Action
Immediate Error Disclosure
Directly governs the duty to acknowledge errors without distorting facts
State
Post Report Inaccurate Data Discovery
Engineer must acknowledge the error discovered after submitting the report
Obligation (1)
  • Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty
    Requires disclosing that data was inaccurate rather than distorting facts
Action (1)
  • Immediate Error Disclosure
    Directly governs the duty to acknowledge errors without distorting facts
State (3)
  • Post Report Inaccurate Data Discovery
    Engineer must acknowledge the error discovered after submitting the report
  • Inaccurate Report Basis
    Engineer must not distort or alter facts underlying the original report
  • Undisclosed Corrected Data For Attorney X
    Failure to disclose corrected data equates to not acknowledging an error
Constraint (1)
  • Engineer A Inaccurate Report Non-Deception
    Requires acknowledging errors and not distorting facts, which underlies the duty to correct the deceptive report.
Principle (2)
  • Accountability for Discovered Error
    Requires acknowledging errors which matches the obligation to admit inaccurate data was used
  • Accountability for Inaccurate Report Data
    Directly mirrors the duty to acknowledge and correct errors once discovered
Role (1)
  • Engineer A Forensic Engineer
    Engineer A must acknowledge the newly discovered data as an error in the prior report rather than distort or ignore it
Event (1)
  • Data Inaccuracy Discovery
    Engineer must acknowledge the error found in the original data rather than ignore it
Resource (1)
  • BER Case 95-5
    Both relate to the obligation of an expert witness to acknowledge new or corrected facts rather than distort them.
Capability (2)
  • Engineer A Error Accountability
    Directly requires acknowledgment of errors without distorting facts
  • Engineer A Error Discovery Recognition
    Recognizing the error is a precondition to acknowledging it as required
III.1.b board + analysis Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 9)
Obligation
Engineer A Immediate Advisement Duty
Requires advising the client when the project outcome will not be successful due to new data
Action
Immediate Error Disclosure
Requires advising the client when new data affects the success or validity of prior conclusions
State
Pending Product Failure Litigation
Engineer should advise client if new data affects the litigation outcome
Obligation (2)
  • Engineer A Immediate Advisement Duty
    Requires advising the client when the project outcome will not be successful due to new data
  • Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty
    Requires informing Attorney X that conclusions would differ, akin to advising of unsuccessful project
Action (1)
  • Immediate Error Disclosure
    Requires advising the client when new data affects the success or validity of prior conclusions
State (2)
  • Pending Product Failure Litigation
    Engineer should advise client if new data affects the litigation outcome
  • Pending Settlement Negotiations
    Engineer must inform client if corrected data impacts settlement viability
Role (1)
  • Engineer A Forensic Engineer
    Engineer A should advise Attorney X that the case conclusions may be affected by newly discovered data before settlement proceeds
Event (1)
  • Settlement Negotiations Commencement
    Engineer should advise client if new data affects the viability or success of the settlement position
Capability (2)
  • Engineer A Material Fact Disclosure
    Requires advising the client when the project or conclusions will not hold up due to new data
  • Engineer A Error Discovery Recognition
    Recognizing the data error underlies the duty to advise the attorney client of the changed situation
III.3.a board + analysis Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 16)
Obligation
Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty
Avoiding omission of material fact aligns with disclosing inaccurate data
Action
Report Submission
Prohibits submitting reports that omit material facts discovered during investigation
State
Undisclosed Corrected Data For Attorney X
Withholding corrected data is a material omission of fact
Obligation (2)
  • Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty
    Avoiding omission of material fact aligns with disclosing inaccurate data
  • Engineer A Truthful Expert Reporting Duty
    Prohibits misrepresentation or omission of material facts in expert testimony
Action (2)
  • Report Submission
    Prohibits submitting reports that omit material facts discovered during investigation
  • Immediate Error Disclosure
    Requires correcting any prior omission of material facts once discovered
State (2)
  • Undisclosed Corrected Data For Attorney X
    Withholding corrected data is a material omission of fact
  • Inaccurate Report Basis
    An inaccurate basis represents a material misrepresentation if left uncorrected
Constraint (1)
  • Engineer A Inaccurate Report Non-Deception
    Prohibits omitting a material fact, directly creating the constraint against letting the report remain deceptive.
Principle (3)
  • Honesty in Forensic Report
    Avoiding omission of material facts relates to ensuring the forensic report is honest and complete
  • Accountability for Inaccurate Report Data
    Failing to update the report with accurate data constitutes an omission of material fact
  • Integrity in Forensic Expert Services
    Upholding integrity requires avoiding misrepresentation or omission in forensic work
Role (1)
  • Engineer A Forensic Engineer
    Engineer A must avoid allowing the report or testimony to omit the material fact of the newly discovered data
Event (2)
  • Data Inaccuracy Discovery
    Failing to disclose the corrected data would omit a material fact
  • Settlement Negotiations Commencement
    Proceeding with settlement without disclosing new data could misrepresent material facts
Resource (1)
  • BER Case 95-5
    Both address avoiding omission of material facts discovered after submitting an expert report.
Capability (2)
  • Engineer A Material Fact Disclosure
    Prohibits omitting a material fact which directly applies to disclosing the new inaccurate data
  • Engineer A Report Objectivity Maintenance
    Maintaining objectivity requires avoiding misrepresentation or omission of material facts
Cross-Case Connections
View Extraction
Explicit Board-Cited Precedents 1 Lineage Graph

Cases explicitly cited by the Board in this opinion. These represent direct expert judgment about intertextual relevance.

Principle Established:

An engineer serving as an expert witness or forensic consultant must not selectively use data or omit material information, as doing so constitutes an egregious denial of the professional engineer's duties and responsibilities, whether in a legal, quasi-legal, or nonlegal setting.

Citation Context:

The Board cited this case to illustrate the ethical expectations placed on engineers acting as forensic experts, particularly regarding honesty and the duty not to selectively use or withhold data that affects the accuracy of their conclusions, and used it as instructive precedent for imposing an affirmative duty to disclose newly discovered inaccurate data.

Relevant Excerpts
discussion: "One such case was NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5 . In that case, Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles."
discussion: "In reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal, said the Board."
discussion: "While the facts in BER Case 95-5 are somewhat different than the present case, the Board of Ethical Review believes that BER Case 95-5 is instructive regarding the expectations when a professional engineer serves as an engineering expert."
Implicit Similar Cases 10 Similarity Network

Cases sharing ontology classes or structural similarity. These connections arise from constrained extraction against a shared vocabulary.

Component Similarity 56% Facts Similarity 56% Discussion Similarity 63% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 36% Principle Overlap 72%
Same outcome unclear View Synthesis
Component Similarity 61% Facts Similarity 64% Discussion Similarity 62% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 15% Principle Overlap 68%
Same outcome unclear View Synthesis
Component Similarity 59% Facts Similarity 60% Discussion Similarity 71% Outcome Alignment 50% Tag Overlap 88% Principle Overlap 70%
View Synthesis
Component Similarity 54% Facts Similarity 59% Discussion Similarity 40% Outcome Alignment 100% Principle Overlap 76%
Same outcome unclear View Synthesis
Component Similarity 60% Facts Similarity 62% Discussion Similarity 60% Outcome Alignment 50% Tag Overlap 50% Principle Overlap 74%
View Synthesis
Component Similarity 51% Facts Similarity 43% Discussion Similarity 45% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 8% Principle Overlap 74%
Same outcome unclear View Synthesis
Component Similarity 47% Facts Similarity 33% Discussion Similarity 69% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 30% Principle Overlap 68%
Same outcome unclear View Synthesis
Component Similarity 50% Facts Similarity 66% Discussion Similarity 69% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 10% Principle Overlap 70%
Same outcome unclear View Synthesis
Component Similarity 57% Facts Similarity 46% Discussion Similarity 66% Outcome Alignment 50% Tag Overlap 50% Principle Overlap 75%
View Synthesis
Component Similarity 58% Facts Similarity 54% Discussion Similarity 67% Outcome Alignment 50% Tag Overlap 50% Principle Overlap 67%
View Synthesis
Questions & Conclusions (1 board)
View Extraction
Board Board question 1

What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?

Board conclusion Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X. Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant’s attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
Resolved by: The Board treated the duty to correct the record as outweighing any interest in protecting the momentum of ongoing negotiations, since accurate information was deemed critical to the client's decision-making. (confidence 0.75)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.1.b. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Implicit (3)

Does Engineer A's obligation to disclose the data error extend beyond Attorney X to the defendant's attorney or a tribunal, given that the settlement negotiations directly affect an opposing party who may be relying on the original conclusions?

AnalyticalThe Board's affirmative obligation runs specifically to Attorney X as the retaining client, not directly to the defendant's attorney or a tribunal. Engineer A's ethical duty is to ensure his retaining client possesses accurate technical information; it is then Attorney X's separate professional and legal responsibility to determine what, if anything, must be disclosed to opposing counsel or the court. This preserves the proper boundary between the engineer's technical/ethical obligations and the attorney's legal obligations, even though the ultimate downstream effect concerns a third party (the defendant) who is not in privity with Engineer A.
Resolved by: The Board separated Engineer A's technical duty to inform his client from the attorney's distinct legal duty to decide what, if anything, to disclose to opposing counsel or the court, so the engineer's obligation is discharged before any third-party disclosure question arises. (confidence 0.75)
III.1.b. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalRegarding Q101, Engineer A's direct professional obligation runs to Attorney X, the retaining client, not to the defendant's attorney or a tribunal. Engineer A has no independent duty to disclose to opposing counsel; rather, once Attorney X is properly informed under the Immediate Advisement Duty, it becomes Attorney X's professional and legal responsibility to determine what disclosure obligations exist toward the tribunal or opposing party. Engineer A's ethical duty is fully discharged by ensuring Attorney X possesses accurate information before negotiations conclude.
Resolved by: The Board resolved the tension between disclosure duties and negotiating harm by confining Engineer A's obligation strictly to informing the client, thereby avoiding any need to weigh the engineer's duty against downstream negotiation consequences. (confidence 0.70)
III.1.b. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

What is Engineer A's responsibility if Attorney X, upon being informed of the inaccurate data, chooses not to disclose the correction or proceed with settlement negotiations using the original flawed report?

AnalyticalRegarding Q102, if Attorney X, once informed, chooses not to correct the record or continues to rely on the flawed report in negotiations, Engineer A's ethical obligation does not automatically extend to unilateral disclosure to third parties, but Engineer A cannot allow their own name and credentials to be associated with a report known to be based on inaccurate data. Engineer A retains an independent obligation under the Report Objectivity Duty to withdraw or formally correct the report and to decline further participation if the attorney insists on using the uncorrected findings.
Resolved by: The board weighs Engineer A's personal duty to protect the integrity of their own professional name against the absence of any established duty to unilaterally notify third parties, resolving in favor of a narrower self-regarding remedy (withdrawal, correction, or refusal to continue) rather than broader disclosure. (confidence 0.72)
III.1.a. II.3.a. III.1.b. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

Does Engineer A have an ongoing duty to monitor the accuracy of the data underlying the report even after submission, or is the obligation triggered only by the incidental discovery of the inaccuracy?

AnalyticalRegarding Q104, Engineer A's disclosure obligation is triggered by the discovery event itself rather than by an ongoing surveillance duty. The Board's reasoning implies engineers are not required to continuously re-verify data after report submission, but once an inaccuracy comes to an engineer's attention through any means, the Immediate Advisement Duty is activated regardless of how the discovery occurred.
Resolved by: The board balances the burden of imposing a continuous verification duty against the lighter, event-triggered duty to disclose once an error becomes known, favoring the latter as sufficient to satisfy professional accountability. (confidence 0.75)
III.1.a. II.3.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalThe synthesis suggests a temporal/triggering principle: Accountability for Discovered Error is activated the instant an inaccuracy is recognized (Engineer A Error Discovery Recognition), regardless of whether the engineer had any ongoing duty to actively monitor data accuracy after report submission. This decouples the obligation to correct from any duty to continuously verify, meaning passive discovery is sufficient to trigger an active, immediate disclosure obligation—effectively making the disclosure duty asymmetric: no duty to search, but an absolute duty to speak once informed.
Resolved by: The board resolved the tension between imposing a burdensome continuous verification duty and requiring honest correction by making the obligation activate only upon actual discovery, not upon a duty to search. (confidence 0.75)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.1.b. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Principle tension (3)

How should Engineer A's duty of Accountability for Discovered Error be balanced against potential harm to Attorney X's negotiating position and the injured client's interests in a favorable settlement?

AnalyticalThe Board's reasoning implies that Engineer A's disclosure obligation is deontological and outcome-independent: it attaches upon discovery of the data inaccuracy regardless of whether the corrected conclusions would help or hurt Attorney X's negotiating position, and regardless of the practical disruption to an ongoing settlement. The duty to acknowledge errors and report truthfully under the Code is not contingent on a favorable cost-benefit analysis for the client; Engineer A is not permitted to weigh the injured client's interest in a favorable settlement against the integrity of the technical record.
Resolved by: The Board rejected any cost-benefit weighing of the client's negotiating advantage against the duty to correct the record, treating the disclosure obligation as absolute once an error is discovered. (confidence 0.70)
II.3.a. III.1.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalRegarding Q201 and Q203, the Board's framework establishes that Accountability for Discovered Error and Integrity in Forensic Expert Services categorically outweigh strategic or client-outcome considerations. The potential disruption to settlement negotiations or harm to the injured client's negotiating position is not treated as a legitimate countervailing factor; professional integrity in forensic reporting is structured as a threshold obligation that must be satisfied before any strategic considerations come into play.
Resolved by: The board treats forensic integrity as a threshold condition that must be satisfied before strategic or client-outcome considerations are even weighed, rather than balancing the two as commensurate interests. (confidence 0.78)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalThis case establishes a clear prioritization hierarchy for forensic engineers: the engineer's obligation to accuracy and truthful reporting under the Code outranks considerations of client advantage, case strategy, or the practical disruption that disclosure may cause. Attorney X's interest in a favorable settlement, and even the injured client's interest in maximizing recovery, are subordinated to the engineer's non-negotiable duty to ensure that data underlying expert conclusions is not knowingly left uncorrected. The Board's reasoning implies that the forensic engineer's role as an objective fact-finder for the tribunal/negotiation process takes precedence over the engineer's role as a retained advocate-adjacent expert serving one side's interests.
Resolved by: The Board subordinates Attorney X's and the injured client's interests in favorable settlement outcomes to the engineer's non-negotiable duty to ensure uncorrected data is not knowingly allowed to stand. (confidence 0.75)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.1.b. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C301

Does Honesty in Forensic Expert Reports conflict with Accountability for Inaccurate Report Data when the corrected conclusions might undermine the very case Engineer A was retained to support?

AnalyticalRegarding Q202, there is no genuine conflict between Honesty in Forensic Expert Reports and Accountability for Inaccurate Report Data in this case, because the engineer's professional duty of honesty is defined independently of case outcome. The obligation to correct the report exists precisely because the engineer's role is to provide objective technical findings, not to advocate for a particular case result; thus corrected conclusions that undermine the case do not create a competing ethical duty but simply reveal that the original advocacy-aligned conclusions were never properly grounded.
Resolved by: The board dissolves the apparent conflict by subordinating outcome concerns to the definition of the engineer's role, so honesty and accountability are treated as aligned rather than competing duties. (confidence 0.74)
II.3.a. III.1.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalThe apparent tensions among Honesty in Forensic Expert Reports, Accountability for Inaccurate Report Data, and Integrity in Forensic Expert Services turn out to be resolved rather than genuinely conflicting: all three principles converge on the same required action—immediate disclosure to Attorney X. The Board treats the engineer's epistemic duty to truth as categorically prior to any strategic or client-outcome considerations, meaning that once inaccurate data is discovered, there is no legitimate weighing process between 'protecting the negotiation' and 'correcting the record.' The correction obligation is triggered automatically by discovery, not by an assessment of whether disclosure helps or harms the client's bargaining position.
Resolved by: The Board dissolves the apparent conflict by ranking the epistemic duty to truth as categorically prior to strategic or client-outcome considerations, so no genuine weighing between principles is required. (confidence 0.80)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C302

How should Integrity in Forensic Expert Services be weighed against the practical reality that immediate disclosure could disrupt or derail an ongoing settlement negotiation beneficial to the injured client?

Also discussed in: C204 C301 C302
Theoretical (3)

From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty to advise Attorney X immediately upon discovering that the report's underlying data was inaccurate, regardless of the consequences to the settlement negotiations?

AnalyticalRegarding Q301, from a deontological perspective Engineer A has a duty to disclose that is independent of consequences; the rightness of the disclosure act derives from the professional's role-based obligation of honesty and error acknowledgment, not from whether disclosure helps or harms Attorney X's negotiating position. The Board's conclusion reflects this deontological framing by characterizing the obligation as 'affirmative' and immediate rather than conditioned on likely outcomes.
Resolved by: The board applies a deontological frame that excludes consequentialist balancing altogether, deriving the disclosure duty solely from the engineer's role-based obligation of honesty rather than from any assessment of likely outcomes. (confidence 0.73)
III.1.a. III.1.b. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C102

From a consequentialist perspective, did the potential disruption to the pending settlement negotiations justify any delay in Engineer A disclosing the corrected data to Attorney X?

AnalyticalRegarding Q302, a consequentialist analysis could plausibly support delaying disclosure if it were argued that disclosure risks harming the injured client's settlement outcome; however, the Board implicitly rejects a narrow consequentialist calculus in favor of a broader consequentialist view that considers systemic harms, including damage to the integrity of the litigation and settlement process, harm to the defendant's attorney's ability to negotiate on accurate terms, and erosion of trust in forensic engineering testimony generally, all of which outweigh short-term client-outcome benefits from delay.
Resolved by: The Board weighed narrow client-outcome benefits of delay against broader systemic harms to litigation integrity, negotiation fairness, and trust in forensic testimony, and found the systemic harms controlling. (confidence 0.78)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

Did Engineer A act with professional integrity by maintaining objectivity and promptly acknowledging the error in the forensic report rather than allowing the flawed conclusions to stand?

Also discussed in: C1
Counterfactual (2)

If the settlement negotiations had already concluded and the case fully settled before Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy, would the Board still have found an affirmative obligation for Engineer A to immediately advise Attorney X?

AnalyticalThe Board's conclusion appears grounded in the fact that Engineer A discovered the inaccuracy while the report was still being actively relied upon in ongoing negotiations, but the underlying ethical principle—accountability for errors and truthful reporting—would logically still require disclosure even if the settlement had already concluded or if the corrected data did not change Engineer A's ultimate conclusion. The obligation stems from the integrity of the professional record itself, not merely from its immediate utility to a pending negotiation; the urgency identified by the Board reflects timing considerations, not the existence of the underlying duty.
Resolved by: The Board's urgency rationale addressed only when disclosure must occur, not whether it must occur, implying the underlying duty would survive even without settlement urgency or a change in conclusions. (confidence 0.60)
III.1.a. III.1.b. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalRegarding Q401, the Board's affirmative obligation would likely still apply even if settlement negotiations had already concluded, though the urgency and practical stakes described by the Board (informing negotiations 'in the middle of' happening) would be diminished. Engineer A's underlying duties of error acknowledgment and truthful reporting under the Code are not contingent on the negotiation timeline; a concluded settlement based on inaccurate data would still require correction, potentially with different downstream consequences such as motions to reopen or rescind the settlement.
Resolved by: The Board treats the urgency of disclosure as diminished by a concluded settlement but does not treat the underlying disclosure obligation itself as contingent on timing, so the duty persists even as practical stakes change. (confidence 0.65)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.1.b. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

If the corrected data had not changed Engineer A's conclusions about the cause of the accident, would the Board still have imposed the same affirmative disclosure obligation on Engineer A?

AnalyticalRegarding Q402, even if the corrected data did not change Engineer A's ultimate conclusions about the cause of the accident, the Board's reasoning suggests the same disclosure obligation would apply, because the duty is grounded in accountability for data accuracy and transparency in the forensic process itself, not merely in outcome-altering significance. Engineer A would still be obligated to inform Attorney X of the data correction so that the attorney could assess and confirm that the underlying report's evidentiary basis remains sound, since the attorney and opposing party are entitled to rely on accurate underlying data regardless of whether conclusions changed.
Resolved by: The Board subordinates any efficiency argument that immaterial-to-outcome errors need not be disclosed to the categorical duty of data accuracy and transparency. (confidence 0.72)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C103
Analytical questions (1)

Questions the analysis generates beyond the board’s explicit questions: implicit issues, principle tensions, theoretical framings, and counterfactuals. A question with an identified source board question appears nested under that question above.

Implicit (1)

Should Engineer A have implemented verification procedures during the original forensic investigation that could have caught the data inaccuracy before the report was submitted and relied upon in negotiations?

Also discussed in: C303
Decisions & Arguments (5)
View Extraction

Should Engineer A immediately disclose the discovered data inaccuracy to Attorney X, or delay or withhold disclosure to avoid disrupting the pending settlement negotiations?

Options considered:
O1 Step forward as soon as the inaccuracy is recognized and inform Attorney X that the report's conclusions rest on inaccurate data and would change with accurate data. Board's choice
O2 Postpone advising Attorney X until Engineer A independently re-verifies the materiality of the data error, to avoid raising a false alarm.
O3 Say nothing until the settlement negotiations conclude, reasoning that disclosure mid-negotiation could harm the client's bargaining position.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A submitted a written forensic report with conclusions on accident causation to Attorney X. Settlement negotiations subsequently began. Engineer A later discovered the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, while negotiations were still ongoing.

Warrant

Engineers must be objective and truthful in professional reports and must acknowledge and correct errors in their own work. The duty to disclose a known inaccuracy to the retaining client is not conditioned on whether disclosure helps or harms that client's negotiating position.

Rebuttal

This duty would not apply if the inaccuracy were immaterial to the ultimate causation conclusions, or if negotiations had already concluded such that disclosure could have no bearing on the pending settlement, though the underlying obligation to correct the record is argued to persist even then.

Engineer A Immediate Advisement Duty

Should Engineer A limit disclosure of the data inaccuracy to Attorney X alone, or take it upon himself to also inform the defendant's attorney or a tribunal directly?

Options considered:
O1 Limit disclosure of the data inaccuracy to the retaining attorney, leaving further legal disclosure decisions to Attorney X. Board's choice
O2 Independently notify the opposing party's attorney or the tribunal of the data inaccuracy, bypassing Attorney X's discretion.
O3 Advise Attorney X of the inaccuracy and request that Attorney X authorize a joint or attorney-mediated disclosure to opposing counsel.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A was retained solely by Attorney X to perform the forensic investigation and had no direct professional relationship with the defendant's attorney or the tribunal.

Warrant

Engineers must act as faithful agents to the client who retained them and must communicate technical findings accurately to that client. Determining downstream legal disclosure obligations to opposing parties or courts is the attorney's professional and legal responsibility, not the engineer's.

Rebuttal

This boundary would not hold if Engineer A had an independent contractual or regulatory relationship with the tribunal or opposing party, or if Attorney X's inaction created an ongoing public safety concern requiring direct engineer disclosure.

Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty

If Attorney X declines to correct or disclose the data error after being informed, should Engineer A withdraw or formally correct the report and decline further participation, or unilaterally disclose the error to opposing counsel or the tribunal?

Options considered:
O1 Formally correct or withdraw the report and refuse to continue assisting if Attorney X persists in relying on the known inaccurate findings. Board's choice
O2 Independently inform the defendant's attorney or the tribunal of the data inaccuracy despite Attorney X's refusal to act.
O3 Defer entirely to Attorney X's judgment and take no additional steps once the attorney has been informed.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A informed Attorney X of the data inaccuracy and the resulting change to his conclusions. Attorney X may choose not to correct the record or may continue settlement negotiations using the original flawed report.

Warrant

Engineers must remain objective and truthful in reports issued under their name and must not permit their professional work to be associated with known inaccuracies, but engineers also lack authority to unilaterally override an attorney's independent legal disclosure decisions.

Rebuttal

This would not apply if withdrawal is contractually impossible, or if Engineer A held an independent legal or regulatory disclosure duty, in which case broader disclosure to protect the public interest could be warranted.

Engineer A Report Objectivity Duty

Should Engineer A have implemented rigorous independent verification procedures for the underlying data during the original investigation, or was reliance on standard forensic methods and the data as provided sufficient?

Options considered:
O1 Rely on data as provided and apply verification methods generally accepted in forensic engineering practice, consistent with what Engineer A actually did. Board's choice
O2 Subject all data inputs to independent, exhaustive verification before finalizing conclusions, beyond standard practice.
O3 Engage an independent reviewer to audit the data underlying the most consequential causation findings before submitting the report.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer A conducted the forensic engineering investigation of the mechanical product failure for Attorney X and produced conclusions that were later found to rest on inaccurate data, discovered only after the report was submitted and relied upon in negotiations.

Warrant

Engineers must exercise diligence in gathering and verifying facts underlying their professional conclusions, but are not required to exceed accepted forensic verification standards to guarantee detection of every latent data error.

Rebuttal

This would not apply if the inaccurate data was readily verifiable through routine cross checking that a competent forensic engineer would ordinarily perform, in which case the failure to verify would itself constitute a breach of diligence.

Engineer A Report Objectivity Duty

Does Engineer A have an ongoing duty to actively monitor and re-verify the report's underlying data after submission, or is his duty limited to disclosing an inaccuracy once it is incidentally discovered?

Options considered:
O1 Disclose immediately upon recognizing the inaccuracy but do not undertake any ongoing re-verification of previously submitted data. Board's choice
O2 Implement a formal procedure to periodically re-check the accuracy of data underlying reports even after submission and payment.
O3 Treat all obligations regarding the report's data as ending once the engagement and report submission are complete, with no post-submission duty at all.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

The inaccuracy in the data underlying Engineer A's report came to his attention only after the report had been submitted and was already being relied upon in settlement negotiations.

Warrant

Engineers are not required to conduct indefinite ongoing surveillance of previously submitted work, but engineers must act on any error that comes to their attention regardless of the source or timing of that discovery.

Rebuttal

This would not apply if Engineer A had an explicit ongoing contractual engagement requiring continued monitoring of the investigation's data, in which case a proactive verification duty could arise independent of incidental discovery.

Engineer A Inaccurate Data Disclosure Duty
Event Timeline (7)
7 sequenced 4 actions 3 events
Case timeline
A mechanical product failure occurred, causing extensive injuries to Attorney X's client and giving rise to the pending litigation for which Engineer A is retained.
State changes (1)
  • began: Pending Product Failure Litigation
Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report concerning a mechanical product failure that injured the attorney's client.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.75)
Because accepting the engagement sets in motion the entire causal chain from investigation through report submission and eventual settlement negotiations, grounding this initial step in honesty and integrity is critical to ensuring that everything downstream rests on a trustworthy foundation.
Engineer A conducts the forensic engineering investigation of the mechanical product failure for Attorney X and formulates conclusions regarding the cause of the accident based on the data available at the time.
At stake (1)
  • Duty to Be Truthful and Honest in Professional Reports
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.75)
Since the forensic investigation directly determines the content of the report that attorney X and others will later rely on for settlement negotiations, conducting it under the guidance of honesty and integrity is essential to prevent flawed data from propagating into consequential legal decisions.
Engineer A prepares the written report with conclusions on the cause of the accident and submits it to Attorney X, who then relies on it in settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney.
Fulfills (1)
  • Duty to Be Truthful and Honest in Professional Reports
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.70)
By fulfilling the duty to be truthful and honest in professional reports, the report submission action carries forward the integrity of the investigation into a document that causally triggers settlement negotiations, meaning any dishonesty here would directly mislead the parties relying on it, though in this instance the duty was met and the reliance proceeded on that basis until an error emerged.
State changes (1)
  • began: Pending Settlement Negotiations
Following receipt of Engineer A's report, settlement negotiations between Attorney X and the defendant's attorney get underway and are ongoing when the data problem surfaces.
State changes (1)
  • began: Pending Settlement Negotiations
Engineer A discovers that the data underlying his report conclusions was inaccurate and that using accurate data would have changed his conclusions, while settlement negotiations are still ongoing.
State changes (2)
  • began: Inaccurate Report Basis
  • began: Post Report Inaccurate Data Discovery
The required action identified by the Board: upon discovering that the data underlying his report was inaccurate and would change his conclusions, Engineer A must step forward and immediately advise Attorney X while settlement negotiations are still ongoing.
Fulfills (2)
  • Affirmative Obligation to Immediately Advise Attorney X
  • Duty to Be Truthful and Honest in Professional Reports
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.80)
Triggered by the discovery of a data inaccuracy, the immediate disclosure fulfills both the affirmative obligation to inform attorney X and the ongoing duty of truthfulness, and its importance lies in correcting the causal trajectory set off by the earlier report before the inaccurate information could further distort the settlement process.
State changes (1)
  • ended: Undisclosed Corrected Data For Attorney X
Narrative (2 main characters)
View Extraction
Opening Context

Written in second person from the engineer's point of view, so you read the case as the professional experienced it. Underlined names link to the character's profile below.

You are Engineer A, a professional engineer who performs forensic engineering services for attorneys involved in litigation. Attorney X retained you to investigate a mechanical product failure that caused extensive injuries to her client, and to prepare a written report addressing the cause of the accident. You conducted the investigation, drew conclusions based on the data available to you, and submitted your written report to Attorney X. Attorney X is now engaged in settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney, using your report as part of the basis for those negotiations. After submitting the report, but before the settlement negotiations conclude, you discover that the data you relied upon in forming your conclusions was inaccurate, and that using more accurate data would have led you to different conclusions about the cause of the failure. You must now determine how to proceed given this discovery and its implications for the ongoing litigation.

Main characters (2)

Each card shows the roles a person holds and the tensions those roles raise for them. A single person may carry several roles in the case, and a tension between obligations can implicate more than one person at once. Click Show all tensions for the full list.

Engineer A Roles in this case: Forensic Engineer

Guided by: Honesty in Forensic Report, Accountability for Discovered Error, Honesty in Forensic Expert Reports

The duty to immediately advise the retaining attorney upon discovering an error in data or analysis creates pressure because that attorney is a paying client with a stake in the litigation outcome. Once informed early and directly, the attorney may seek to influence how the correction is framed or whether it is disclosed at all, which can compromise the engineer's separate duty to keep the report objective and free of advocacy bias. The tension arises from the engineer's dual position as a retained expert and an independent technical fact finder.

Acknowledging a personal or analytical error may require revising or retracting prior sworn or written expert statements, which can be read as undermining the engineer's credibility and the perceived reliability of all prior truthful reporting in the same matter. The duty to acknowledge error pulls toward prompt correction, while the duty to maintain a consistent, truthful expert record creates incentive to minimize the appearance of inconsistency, producing a tension over how and when the correction is communicated.

The obligation to disclose that data or findings were inaccurate can be satisfied at different levels of scope, for example privately informing the retaining attorney versus notifying the court, opposing counsel, or the injured party directly. The non-deception constraint arguably requires that anyone relying on the flawed report not be misled, which may demand broader disclosure than the retaining attorney is willing to permit. This creates tension over how far the disclosure duty must extend to satisfy the non-deception constraint without breaching client confidentiality expectations.

Attorney X Roles in this case: Retaining ClientClient Injured Party

The duty to immediately advise the retaining attorney upon discovering an error in data or analysis creates pressure because that attorney is a paying client with a stake in the litigation outcome. Once informed early and directly, the attorney may seek to influence how the correction is framed or whether it is disclosed at all, which can compromise the engineer's separate duty to keep the report objective and free of advocacy bias. The tension arises from the engineer's dual position as a retained expert and an independent technical fact finder.

Attaches to role: Retaining Client

The obligation to disclose that data or findings were inaccurate can be satisfied at different levels of scope, for example privately informing the retaining attorney versus notifying the court, opposing counsel, or the injured party directly. The non-deception constraint arguably requires that anyone relying on the flawed report not be misled, which may demand broader disclosure than the retaining attorney is willing to permit. This creates tension over how far the disclosure duty must extend to satisfy the non-deception constraint without breaching client confidentiality expectations.

Attaches to role: Retaining Client

Other people involved in the case but not central to the opening narrative.

The duty to immediately advise the retaining attorney upon discovering an error in data or analysis creates pressure because that attorney is a paying client with a stake in the litigation outcome. Once informed early and directly, the attorney may seek to influence how the correction is framed or whether it is disclosed at all, which can compromise the engineer's separate duty to keep the report objective and free of advocacy bias. The tension arises from the engineer's dual position as a retained expert and an independent technical fact finder.

Acknowledging a personal or analytical error may require revising or retracting prior sworn or written expert statements, which can be read as undermining the engineer's credibility and the perceived reliability of all prior truthful reporting in the same matter. The duty to acknowledge error pulls toward prompt correction, while the duty to maintain a consistent, truthful expert record creates incentive to minimize the appearance of inconsistency, producing a tension over how and when the correction is communicated.

The obligation to disclose that data or findings were inaccurate can be satisfied at different levels of scope, for example privately informing the retaining attorney versus notifying the court, opposing counsel, or the injured party directly. The non-deception constraint arguably requires that anyone relying on the flawed report not be misled, which may demand broader disclosure than the retaining attorney is willing to permit. This creates tension over how far the disclosure duty must extend to satisfy the non-deception constraint without breaching client confidentiality expectations.

The Board’s deliberation

How the Board of Ethical Review resolved the case, verbatim from its published conclusions.

Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X. Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant’s attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
Opening States (5)
Post Report Inaccurate Data Discovery Pending Product Failure Litigation Inaccurate Report Basis Undisclosed Corrected Data For Attorney X Pending Settlement Negotiations
Summary
  • An engineer who discovers an error in a report already relied upon by others has an affirmative duty to disclose it immediately rather than wait for the client's convenience or the litigation timeline.
  • The duty of honesty as a technical expert can override the interests of the retaining attorney, since the engineer's obligation runs to the integrity of the analysis and to third parties who may rely on it, not solely to the paying client.
  • Timing matters as much as content when correcting an error, because a delayed correction that surfaces after settlement or judgment can cause harm that a prompt correction would have prevented.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3