Engineer A Questionable Competition Methods Covert Solicitation BER-82
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Engineer_A_Questionable_Competition_Methods_Covert_Solicitation_BER-82
Properties
Instance of
QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughCovertEmployer-DetrimentActivityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughCovertEmployer-DetrimentActivityObligation
Case context
Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while still employed, without disclosing this activity to Engineer B, constituted questionable methods of competition under NSPE Code Section III.7, regardless of whether Engineer A was subjectively certain the conduct was unethical.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from competing with Engineer B through questionable methods — specifically, covertly soliciting Engineer B's current clients without disclosure while still employed — conduct that Engineer A knew or should have known was problematic and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
Temporal scope
During the notice period while still employed by Engineer B
Relationships
prevailsOver
Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
derivedFromPrinciple
Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
Source Evidence
Source text
Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'
Text references
Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'
Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
Therefore, we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III. 7.
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 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#> .
case171:Engineer_A_Questionable_Competition_Methods_Covert_Solicitation_BER-82 a proeth:QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughCovertEmployer-DetrimentActivityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Questionable Competition Methods Covert Solicitation BER-82" ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case171:Engineer_A_Employer-Initiated_Termination_Pre-Departure_Client_Solicitation_Permissibility ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while still employed, without disclosing this activity to Engineer B, constituted questionable methods of competition under NSPE Code Section III.7, regardless of whether Engineer A was subjectively certain the conduct was unethical." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case171:Questionable_Competition_Methods_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_A ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Through Covert Employer-Detriment Activity Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to refrain from competing with Engineer B through questionable methods — specifically, covertly soliciting Engineer B's current clients without disclosure while still employed — conduct that Engineer A knew or should have known was problematic and raised the possibility of an ethical violation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the notice period while still employed by Engineer B" ;
proeth:textreferences "Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'",
"Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.",
"It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.",
"Therefore, we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III. 7." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 171 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:51:15.290938"^^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
2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.290938
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction