Post-Discharge Collegial Consultation Prudential Norm Applied to Engineer B

@prefix case173: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/173#> . @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#> . case173:Post-Discharge_Collegial_Consultation_Prudential_Norm_Applied_to_Engineer_B a proeth:Post-DischargeCollegialConsultationPrudentialPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Post-Discharge Collegial Consultation Prudential Norm Applied to Engineer B" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's decision to modify Engineer A's sealed subdivision plans without prior consultation" ; proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty", "Inter-Engineer Communication Obligation in Sequential Design Engagement" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Although Engineer B was not ethically prohibited from reviewing Engineer A's work after Engineer A's discharge, the Board found it would have been wiser and more professional for Engineer B to consult with Engineer A before modifying the sealed plans, because Engineer A retained a professional connection to the work through the continued use of his sealed documents" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:discoveredincase "173" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T14:28:53.714541+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "173" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T14:28:53.714541+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:interpretation "Discharge of the original engineer does not fully sever the professional relationship between the original engineer and their sealed work; the successor engineer's professional wisdom is enhanced by consultation even when not strictly required" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Post-Discharge Collegial Consultation Prudential Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "While this Board concedes that Engineer B did not act unethically in agreeing to review the work of Engineer A without notifying Engineer A, we are troubled by much of the actions undertaken by Engineer B subsequent to his review of Engineer A's work." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board distinguished between the mandatory notification obligation (which did not apply after discharge) and the prudential best practice of consultation (which remained professionally advisable), finding Engineer B not unethical for omitting notification but still professionally deficient in not consulting" ; proeth:textreferences "For the reasons cited in Case 79-7 we think it would have been wiser and more professional for Engineer B to consult with Engineer A before undertaking to modify the plans prepared by Engineer A.", "While it is true that Engineer A had been 'discharged' by the client, Engineer A still maintained a connection with the work which he had performed by virtue of the fact that the client passed along Engineer A's work product to Engineer B.", "While this Board concedes that Engineer B did not act unethically in agreeing to review the work of Engineer A without notifying Engineer A, we are troubled by much of the actions undertaken by Engineer B subsequent to his review of Engineer A's work." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 173 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T14:41:54.507924"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 173 Extraction" .