While the facts in this case are somewhat different from those discussed previously, many of the important values and principles expressed in the two earlier cases have a significant influence on the consideration of this case. The two previous cases recognized the need to protect the integrity of professional engineers and professional engineering, as well as the importance of honesty and transparency in providing professional engineering services to clients and the public. The facts and circumstances in this case include Engineer A`s attempt to impose an „obstacle” on the use of information, whereas the two previous cases involved efforts by outside parties to limit the freedom of movement and activity of engineers. In this context, the Chamber considers that the „obstacle” in this case protects the integrity and autonomy of professional engineers and, as such, provides a level of protection for the public. By requesting the implementation of a confidentiality/confidentiality agreement, Engineer A preserves the right of engineers to be fully and fairly recognized and rewarded for who they are, what they do and the services they end up providing. At the same time, Engineer A protects the public interest by requesting a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement, to discourage misrepresentations of third parties and dishonest representations of unscrupulous parties seeking personal gain at the expense of fairness and impartiality. In this context, the Chamber considers that, in light of counsel X`s misrepresentation and deception, Engineer A should consider bringing counsel X`s conduct to the appropriate authorities to conduct an audit and investigation, if circumstances warrant it in accordance with the DEMNSPE code, Section II.1.f. The court rejected the attempt to disqualify the expert and stated that, in the general case, professional engineers play an important role in society by acting as expert witnesses and providing forensic engineering services before, during and after litigation and other legal, legislative and administrative proceedings. Issues related to the relationship between professional engineers who serve as expert witnesses and lawyers and clients who retain them have been examined many times by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. Since such information is recognizable by existing legislation, it is important to maintain confidentiality where possible. The retention agreement should stipulate that all communications between the expert and the lawyer are confidential and should not be disclosed by the expert at any time during or after the case has been processed.
Similarly, the agreement should stipulate that the expert will return all documents containing confidential information or a protected lawyer`s product as soon as the dispute is closed. Can the lawyer disqualify a patent expert by having only a confidentiality agreement (NDA) signed? Engineer A produces engineering experts for lawyers and other clients in civil and criminal matters.