BER-Case-86-5

Rs · Resource Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#BER-Case-86-5
Properties
Instance of
BERCasePrecedent
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#BERCasePrecedent
Confidence
0.98
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Document title
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 86-5
Importance
high
Used by
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer A's departure and client relationship
Used in context
Primary analogical precedent: engineers who developed a proposal for their firm were subsequently approached by the client to work independently; Board found it ethical for them to do so after disclosing to their employer and resigning. Used to compare disclosure behavior and client-solicitation conduct with Engineer A's situation.
Source Evidence
Source text
The Board has previously addressed similar cases. In Case No. 86-5, a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job that was planned.

Text references
The Board concluded that a strict interpretation of the Code under the facts of this case led to the conclusion that it would be ethical for Engineers X, Y, and Z to agree to a contract for consulting services independent of Engineer A's firm.
The Board has previously addressed similar cases. In Case No. 86-5, a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job that was planned.
This case does not appear to be dramatically different than Case No. 86-5 in that a client with a relationship with an engineering firm has sought out personnel within that firm to perform services for the benefit of the client.
TTL
@prefix case178: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#> . @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#> . case178:BER-Case-86-5 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER-Case-86-5" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.98" ; proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:discoveredincase "178" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 86-5" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T08:23:38.439339+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "178" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T08:23:38.439339+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ; proeth:sourcetext "The Board has previously addressed similar cases. In Case No. 86-5, a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job that was planned." ; proeth:textreferences "The Board concluded that a strict interpretation of the Code under the facts of this case led to the conclusion that it would be ethical for Engineers X, Y, and Z to agree to a contract for consulting services independent of Engineer A's firm.", "The Board has previously addressed similar cases. In Case No. 86-5, a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job that was planned.", "This case does not appear to be dramatically different than Case No. 86-5 in that a client with a relationship with an engineering firm has sought out personnel within that firm to perform services for the benefit of the client." ; proeth:usedby "Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer A's departure and client relationship" ; proeth:usedincontext "Primary analogical precedent: engineers who developed a proposal for their firm were subsequently approached by the client to work independently; Board found it ethical for them to do so after disclosing to their employer and resigning. Used to compare disclosure behavior and client-solicitation conduct with Engineer A's situation." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 178 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T08:48:26.004392"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 178 Extraction" .
Metadata
Type
Individual
Last Updated
2026-05-28 16:27
Discovered in case
178
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T08:23:38.439339+00:00
First case
178
Generated
2026-03-01T08:23:38.439339+00:00
Attributed to
Case 178 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T08:48:26.004392
Generated by
ProEthica Case 178 Extraction