Client Autonomy in Service Provider Selection Distinguished from Engineer-Manipulated Transition
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#Client_Autonomy_in_Service_Provider_Selection_Distinguished_from_Engineer-Manipulated_Transition
Properties
Instance of
ClientAutonomyinEngineeringServiceProviderSelection
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ClientAutonomyinEngineeringServiceProviderSelection
Applied to
Comparison with BER Case No. 97-2
Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients
Balancing with
Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle
Concrete expression
The Board distinguished the current case from BER Case No. 97-2 (where client-initiated encouragement mitigated ethical concerns) by finding no client impetus in Engineer A's solicitation — Engineer A manufactured client concerns about Firm X's capacity rather than responding to genuine client-initiated interest in transition, thereby converting the client autonomy principle from a mitigating factor into an aggravating one
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Interpretation
Client autonomy in service provider selection is a legitimate value that can mitigate ethical concerns when clients genuinely exercise their choice; but when an engineer manufactures the conditions that induce client concern and then presents himself as the solution, the client autonomy principle is being exploited rather than respected
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The absence of genuine client impetus meant the client autonomy principle provided no mitigation; Engineer A's conduct was found to fall below ethical standards
Source Evidence
Source text
unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
Text references
No one can deny that a client has a right to retain the engineering firm of its choice.
What must be addressed, however, is a method to effect that right in a manner that is both fair and equitable to all of the concerned parties.
unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
TTL
@prefix case127: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case127:Client_Autonomy_in_Service_Provider_Selection_Distinguished_from_Engineer-Manipulated_Transition a proeth:ClientAutonomyinEngineeringServiceProviderSelection,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Client Autonomy in Service Provider Selection Distinguished from Engineer-Manipulated Transition" ;
proeth:appliedto "Comparison with BER Case No. 97-2",
"Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition",
"Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation",
"Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board distinguished the current case from BER Case No. 97-2 (where client-initiated encouragement mitigated ethical concerns) by finding no client impetus in Engineer A's solicitation — Engineer A manufactured client concerns about Firm X's capacity rather than responding to genuine client-initiated interest in transition, thereby converting the client autonomy principle from a mitigating factor into an aggravating one" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "127" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "127" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Client autonomy in service provider selection is a legitimate value that can mitigate ethical concerns when clients genuinely exercise their choice; but when an engineer manufactures the conditions that induce client concern and then presents himself as the solution, the client autonomy principle is being exploited rather than respected" ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection" ;
proeth:sourcetext "unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The absence of genuine client impetus meant the client autonomy principle provided no mitigation; Engineer A's conduct was found to fall below ethical standards" ;
proeth:textreferences "No one can deny that a client has a right to retain the engineering firm of its choice.",
"What must be addressed, however, is a method to effect that right in a manner that is both fair and equitable to all of the concerned parties.",
"unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 127 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T03:44:36.627140"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 127 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
127
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
First case
127
Generated
2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
Attributed to
Case 127 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T03:44:36.627140
Generated by
ProEthica Case 127 Extraction