DP2

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP2

Should Engineer A document the client confrontation about the unauthorized wetland fill in writing, or is verbal notification sufficient to discharge the professional obligation?

Having decided to contact the client about the unauthorized wetland fill, Engineer A must determine the form and content of that communication. The obligation to document the confrontation in writing is distinct from the underlying duty to contact the client at all. Engineer A faces a choice between a fully documented written communication that creates a professional record — including the date of observation, the nature of the violation, the demand for remediation, and the client's response — versus a verbal-only contact that may satisfy the spirit of client engagement but leaves no evidentiary record and exposes Engineer A to professional and legal risk if the client later denies being informed.

Send the client a written communication — letter or email — that records the date of the incidental observation, describes the unauthorized fill observed, identifies the specific federal and state environmental laws violated, demands remediation or pursuit of required permits and variances, and requests a written response from the client, thereby creating a professional record that establishes Engineer A's action and the client's assumption of responsibility.

Contact the client by telephone or in person, verbally communicate the observed violation and the need for remediation, but create no written record of the interaction — mirroring the approach found insufficient in BER 97-13 and leaving Engineer A without documentation if the client later denies being informed or disputes the nature of the conversation.

Engineer A — Environmental Engineer, Former Wetland Delineation Contractor