DP4

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

DP4

Should the firm treat the discipline misrepresentation as a minor, non-key-employee-level brochure inaccuracy analogous to BER 90-4 — warranting correction only at the next reprint — or as a pertinent-fact misrepresentation that has ripened into a reckless violation requiring immediate corrective action?

The firm must assess whether the six-month persistence of the discipline misrepresentation after the marketing director's actual knowledge transforms the character of the violation from a negligent typographical oversight into a reckless or constructively intentional misrepresentation under the Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test, and whether the BER 90-4 precedent provides any shelter for the firm's continued inaction.

Classify the discipline mislabeling as a pertinent-fact misrepresentation that has ripened into a reckless violation after six months of post-notice inaction, and direct the marketing director to deploy immediate corrective mechanisms — errata sheets, cover letters, or a reprint — without waiting for the next scheduled production cycle.

Treat the discipline mislabeling as analogous to the non-key-employee listing in BER 90-4 — a minor, inadvertent inaccuracy that does not rise to an ethical violation — and schedule correction in the next routine reprint cycle without deploying interim corrective mechanisms.

Correct the discipline label in all future marketing materials immediately, while commissioning an internal assessment of whether any prospective clients actually received and relied on the misrepresenting literature before deciding whether retroactive corrective notices are warranted.

Firm (Through Its Principals)