DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

Should Engineer A communicate to Firm X's clients about Engineer C's anticipated departure and its implications for Firm X's capacity, or refrain from making any capacity-related representations about Firm X given that he engineered the departure he is citing and is the direct commercial beneficiary of client anxiety?

Engineer A contacted Firm X's clients and represented that because Engineer C was leaving to join Firm Y, Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects, and that clients should hire Firm Y. The ethical question is whether these representations — which may have been technically accurate in a narrow sense — constitute an ethical violation given that Engineer A himself caused the staff departure he was citing, and that the statements were framed as affirmative solicitations rather than neutral disclosures.

Make no representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity to perform, soliciting clients for Firm Y solely on the basis of Firm Y's own qualifications, experience, and capabilities without reference to Engineer C's departure or Firm X's alleged incapacity.

Inform Firm X's clients of Engineer C's anticipated departure while fully disclosing that Engineer A recruited Engineer C and is therefore the cause of the staffing change, leaving clients to draw their own conclusions about Firm X's capacity without directing them to hire Firm Y.

Proactively contact Firm X's clients to represent that Engineer C's departure will leave Firm X hard pressed to perform and that clients should engage Firm Y, treating the anticipated staffing change as a legitimate factual basis for competitive solicitation without disclosing Engineer A's causal role in creating that condition.

Engineer A