Engineer B BER 63-5 Client Self-Review Waiver Recognition
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/164#Engineer_B_BER_63-5_Client_Self-Review_Waiver_Recognition
Properties
Instance of
MunicipalClientSelf-ReviewWaiverRightRecognitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#MunicipalClientSelf-ReviewWaiverRightRecognitionObligation
Case context
The city did not require independent review of Engineer B's plans in his capacity as city engineer, effectively waiving its right to such review. The Board found this permissible, establishing that the engineer was acting in a dual but not divided capacity.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.87
Importance
medium
Obligated party
Engineer B (BER Case No. 63-5 part-time city engineer)
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated to recognize and respect the city's right to waive independent review of his own plans, and to proceed ethically under that waiver without exploiting it to compromise advisory objectivity, understanding that the dual capacity remained permissible precisely because the client exercised its informed waiver right.
Temporal scope
At the time of plan preparation and advisory review for city projects
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer B Client Waiver of Independent Review - BER 63-5
Source Evidence
Source text
there is no requirement in the NSPE Code that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client
Text references
The Board noted that the client has the right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it did in BER Case No. 63-5
Under those circumstances, the engineer was acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one
there is no requirement in the NSPE Code that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client
TTL
@prefix case164: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/164#> .
@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#> .
case164:Engineer_B_BER_63-5_Client_Self-Review_Waiver_Recognition a proeth:MunicipalClientSelf-ReviewWaiverRightRecognitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B BER 63-5 Client Self-Review Waiver Recognition" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case164:Engineer_A_WXY_Engineering_Self-Review_Non-Performance_Structural_Boundary ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case164:Engineer_B_Client_Waiver_of_Independent_Review_-_BER_63-5 ;
proeth:casecontext "The city did not require independent review of Engineer B's plans in his capacity as city engineer, effectively waiving its right to such review. The Board found this permissible, establishing that the engineer was acting in a dual but not divided capacity." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case164:Client_Waiver_of_Independent_Self-Review_Right_Permissibility_Principle_Invoked_in_BER_63-5 ;
proeth:discoveredincase "164" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T03:22:46.313135+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "164" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T03:22:46.313135+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B (BER Case No. 63-5 part-time city engineer)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Municipal Client Self-Review Waiver Right Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B was obligated to recognize and respect the city's right to waive independent review of his own plans, and to proceed ethically under that waiver without exploiting it to compromise advisory objectivity, understanding that the dual capacity remained permissible precisely because the client exercised its informed waiver right." ;
proeth:sourcetext "there is no requirement in the NSPE Code that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client" ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of plan preparation and advisory review for city projects" ;
proeth:textreferences "The Board noted that the client has the right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it did in BER Case No. 63-5",
"Under those circumstances, the engineer was acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one",
"there is no requirement in the NSPE Code that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 164 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T03:45:22.768354"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 164 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
164
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T03:22:46.313135+00:00
First case
164
Generated
2026-03-01T03:22:46.313135+00:00
Attributed to
Case 164 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T03:45:22.768354
Generated by
ProEthica Case 164 Extraction