Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Current-Client_Solicitation_During_Active_Employment_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_A
Properties
Instance of
Current-ClientSolicitationDuringActiveEmploymentProhibitionPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Current-ClientSolicitationDuringActiveEmploymentProhibitionPrinciple
Applied to
Engineer A's client contact activity during the notice period
Balancing with
At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer Solicitation Permissibility Principle
Concrete expression
Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients — not former clients — while still employed, distinguishing the case from BER Case 77-11 where post-departure solicitation of former clients was permissible.
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Interpretation
The current/former client distinction is ethically decisive: soliciting current employer clients while employed crosses the line that post-departure solicitation of former clients does not.
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The Board distinguished Case 77-11 on two grounds — current vs. former clients, and active employment vs. post-departure — holding that both distinctions independently support a finding of violation.
Source Evidence
Source text
In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them. (2) Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
Text references
Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.
We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
TTL
@prefix case171: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#> .
@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#> .
case171:Current-Client_Solicitation_During_Active_Employment_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_A a proeth:Current-ClientSolicitationDuringActiveEmploymentProhibitionPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Applied to Engineer A" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's client contact activity during the notice period" ;
proeth:balancingwith "At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right",
"Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer Solicitation Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients — not former clients — while still employed, distinguishing the case from BER Case 77-11 where post-departure solicitation of former clients was permissible." ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The current/former client distinction is ethically decisive: soliciting current employer clients while employed crosses the line that post-departure solicitation of former clients does not." ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them. (2) Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board distinguished Case 77-11 on two grounds — current vs. former clients, and active employment vs. post-departure — holding that both distinctions independently support a finding of violation." ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.",
"In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.",
"We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 171 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:51:15.288061"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 171 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
171
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.288061
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction