BER 90-4 Firm Principal Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Permissibility Assessment
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#BER_90-4_Firm_Principal_Non-Key-Employee_Brochure_Listing_Permissibility_Assessment
Properties
Instance of
Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
Case context
In BER Case 90-4, a hydrology engineer gave two weeks' notice of departure. The firm continued to list the engineer in brochures and resumes. The Board found this permissible under the totality of circumstances.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.88
Importance
medium
Obligated party
BER 90-4 Firm Principal
Obligation statement
The BER 90-4 firm principal was obligated to assess whether continued listing of the departing hydrology engineer in firm brochures and resumes constituted a pertinent-fact misrepresentation by evaluating the totality of circumstances — including that the engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee,' that the engineer was not the only firm expert in hydrology, and that hydrology did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — and the Board found that under these facts, continued listing did not rise to an ethical violation.
Temporal scope
During the two-week notice period and shortly after departure
Source Evidence
Source text
in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm
Text references
in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm
the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent
the departing engineer was not the only engineer in the firm who possessed such expertise
this area of practice did not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by the firm
TTL
@prefix case131: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case131:BER_90-4_Firm_Principal_Non-Key-Employee_Brochure_Listing_Permissibility_Assessment a proeth:Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER 90-4 Firm Principal Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Permissibility Assessment" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case131:BER_83-1_Firm_Principal_Post-Departure_Brochure_Distribution_Prohibition_Obligation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case131:BER_83-1_vs_BER_90-4_Intent-Differentiated_Assessment,
case131:Marketing_Director_Acknowledged-But-Uncorrected_Error_After_Six_Months ;
proeth:casecontext "In BER Case 90-4, a hydrology engineer gave two weeks' notice of departure. The firm continued to list the engineer in brochures and resumes. The Board found this permissible under the totality of circumstances." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "131" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "131" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "BER 90-4 Firm Principal" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The BER 90-4 firm principal was obligated to assess whether continued listing of the departing hydrology engineer in firm brochures and resumes constituted a pertinent-fact misrepresentation by evaluating the totality of circumstances — including that the engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee,' that the engineer was not the only firm expert in hydrology, and that hydrology did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — and the Board found that under these facts, continued listing did not rise to an ethical violation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the two-week notice period and shortly after departure" ;
proeth:textreferences "in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm",
"the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent",
"the departing engineer was not the only engineer in the firm who possessed such expertise",
"this area of practice did not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by the firm" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 131 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T11:50:23.669471"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 131 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
131
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00
First case
131
Generated
2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00
Attributed to
Case 131 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T11:50:23.669471
Generated by
ProEthica Case 131 Extraction