Accused Engineer Procedural Fairness Right Acknowledged for Engineer B
Engineer B Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint
The Board acknowledges that Engineer B has a legitimate interest in knowing who filed the complaint against him and in what context, and that it is generally considered fundamentally unfair not to know who one's accuser is — a consideration that weighs in favor of signed rather than anonymous complaints.
Even in a professional self-policing context, the accused engineer retains procedural fairness interests that the ethics framework acknowledges — not as a bar to anonymous reporting, but as a factor that should influence the reporting engineer's decision about modality.
State Licensing Board Complaint Recipient
Accused Engineer Procedural Fairness Right in Complaint Context
It is generally considered fundamentally unfair not to know who one's accuser is.
The Board acknowledges the fairness concern but does not elevate it to a bar on anonymous reporting; it remains a consideration that tips the balance toward signed reporting when circumstances permit.
Arguably, Engineer B should have some idea of who made the charge against him in order to understand the context in which the charges are being made.
not having an actual complainant involved in the board's complaint could weaken the case against an individual who may have violated the state board's rules of professional conduct.
Anonymous Ethics Complaint Policy (NSPE BER Guidance)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Policy Guidance on Anonymous Complaints to State Boards
the Board is not willing to conclude that it would be unethical to submit an anonymous complaint
Certainly a great deal more is accomplished by the filing of a legitimate anonymous complaint than by the filing of no complaint at all, particularly where the public health and safety is at risk.
the Board believes that it makes good policy sense for an engineer to step forward and publicly raise an ethical concern with the state board
The Board's deliberation on whether anonymous complaint filing is ethically permissible, weighing fairness to the accused engineer against the public interest in having violations reported; concludes anonymous complaints are not unethical but signed complaints are preferable policy
Anonymous Reporting Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A
Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation for Inadvertent Violations
Engineer A chooses to file the complaint anonymously rather than under his own name, raising the question of whether anonymous reporting satisfies the professional obligation to report misconduct or whether a signed complaint was required
In this context, anonymous reporting is ethically permissible — it fulfills the core obligation to bring the violation to the board's attention — though a signed complaint would be preferable for investigative purposes and fairness to Engineer B; the absence of competitive relationship removes one concern about anonymous reporting (appearance of competitive motive) while the absence of personal acquaintance may explain the choice of anonymity
Engineer A Anonymous Professional Conduct Complaint Filer
Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct.
Anonymous reporting satisfies the ethical minimum; the report identifies Engineer B and the circumstances, providing the board with actionable information despite the reporter's anonymity
Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally.
Anonymous Reporting as Ethical Minimum Applied to Engineer A's Complaint
Signed Complaint Preference Over Anonymous Reporting Principle
Engineer A files an anonymous complaint against Engineer B with the state licensing board; the Board holds this is not unethical — a legitimate anonymous complaint accomplishes far more than no complaint at all, particularly where public health and safety is at risk — while noting that a signed complaint would be preferable.
Anonymous reporting meets the ethical minimum when the engineer has a clear obligation to report but faces circumstances (here, possible concern about competitive perception) that make signed reporting more difficult, provided the complaint is legitimate and concerns genuine misconduct.
The Board resolves the tension by holding anonymous reporting permissible but not ideal — it satisfies the minimum ethical obligation while falling short of the preferred standard of signed, attributed reporting.
in the absence of compelling additional facts, the Board is not willing to conclude that it would be unethical to submit an anonymous complaint.
BER 89-7 Brief Report Mention Insufficiency Constraint Instance
Engineer A included only a brief mention of the client-disclosed code violations in his confidential structural report rather than reporting directly to public authorities, which the Board found insufficient.
Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Constraint
Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not satisfy the obligation to notify appropriate public authorities; direct notification to a public authority with power to act was required.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 89-7 Board ruling
In his report, Engineer A made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies. However, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party.
At the time of report preparation and submission
In ruling that it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities, the Board highlighted the engineer's primary obligation to protect the safety, health, property, and welfare of the public.
BER 89-7 Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Conflict
From discovery of building code violations through Engineer A's decision not to report to public authorities
the obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, and facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. (However) matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Open Conflict State
Engineer A's competing obligations to maintain client confidentiality and to protect public health and safety
Board ruling establishing paramountcy of public safety obligation over confidentiality
Code Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
Client's disclosure of code violations combined with instruction to maintain confidentiality and sell building 'as is'
BER 89-7 Confidentiality Agreement Non-Bar to Safety Reporting Constraint Instance
Engineer A was retained to assess structural integrity of an apartment building under a confidentiality agreement; the client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; Engineer A did not report to public authorities, which the Board ruled was unethical.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Bar to Public Authority Safety Code Violation Reporting Constraint
Engineer A's confidentiality agreement with the client did not bar him from reporting the electrical and mechanical code violations to the appropriate public authorities; the paramount public safety obligation overrode the contractual confidentiality duty.
Throughout the period of engagement and following discovery of the code violations
BER 89-7 Confidentiality Agreement Suppressing Safety Report
From execution of confidentiality agreement through Engineer A's completion of report and non-disclosure to public authorities
Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A was to remain confidential.
Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
Engineer A's contractual obligation to keep structural report confidential while client withholds building code violation information from future occupants
Board ruling that Engineer A had ethical obligation to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities
Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party
the client made clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
Client's instruction that structural report remain confidential and building sold 'as is' without remediation
BER 89-7 Public Safety at Risk from Building Code Violations
From client's disclosure of deficiencies to Engineer A through non-remediation and sale of building
the client confided in Engineer A and informed him that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
Occupants and future occupants of apartment building with electrical and mechanical code deficiencies
Not resolved within case facts; Board ruling establishes reporting obligation as response
Engineer A did realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
matters of public health and safety must take precedence
particularly where the public health and safety is at risk
Client's disclosure that building contained electrical and mechanical system deficiencies violating applicable codes and standards
In BER Case 89-7, Engineer A was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client was planning to sell.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent
Cited as precedent establishing that public health and safety obligations override client confidentiality when an engineer discovers safety violations during the course of professional services; used to ground the present case's analysis of reporting duties
BER Case 89-7 ruling before present case analysis
{'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'disclosed_known_violations': True, 'remedial_action_planned': False, 'sale_condition': 'as is'}
Retained Engineer A to inspect a building prior to sale under a confidentiality agreement; disclosed known electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A while insisting the building would be sold 'as is' with no remedial action, thereby creating a conflict between the engineer's confidentiality obligation and public safety duty.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 89-7 Confidentiality-Bound Building Sale Engineer'}
the client made clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is'
he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
CausalLink_Withhold Safety Violation Repo
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework (BER 89-7 Application)
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework as applied in BER Case 89-7
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
The Board's reasoning in BER 89-7 articulates the framework for weighing confidentiality obligations against public safety imperatives, establishing that 'matters of public health and safety must take precedence' over confidentiality agreements
Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Question Raised By Engineer A Situation
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
The question arises whether Engineer A was obligated to approach Engineer B directly before filing the anonymous complaint; the fact that Engineer A does not know Engineer B personally is a key contextual factor in assessing whether collegial pre-engagement was feasible or required
The collegial pre-reporting engagement obligation is attenuated when the reporting engineer has no personal relationship with the alleged violator and the violation is characterized as 'serious' — in such circumstances, direct reporting to the licensing board is appropriate without prior collegial engagement
The seriousness of the violation and the absence of personal acquaintance between Engineer A and Engineer B support bypassing collegial pre-engagement in favor of direct board reporting
Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.
It was ethical for Engineer A to submit an anonymous letter to the state engineering licensure board as long as the state engineering licensure board has a procedure for accepting anonymous complaints.
Beyond the Board's finding that anonymous filing is permissible when the board has an established procedure for it, the ethical legitimacy of Engineer A's complaint is further reinforced by the disinterested nature of the reporting. Because Engineer A is neither a competitor nor a personal acquaintance of Engineer B, the complaint cannot plausibly be attributed to competitive self-interest, personal animus, or professional rivalry. This disinterested posture substantially reduces the risk that the anonymous filing constitutes a malicious or false attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation in violation of the Code's prohibition on such conduct. The absence of a personal or competitive stake functions as an implicit safeguard against the abuse of anonymous reporting mechanisms, and the Board's analysis would have been more complete had it explicitly recognized that the reporter's motivation is a relevant factor in assessing whether anonymity crosses from permissible reporting into ethically impermissible reputational harm.
The Board's conclusion that anonymous filing is ethically permissible when board procedure allows it does not fully resolve the tension between that permissibility and the policy preference for signed complaints. The Board implicitly acknowledged that a signed complaint is preferable because it strengthens the evidentiary value of the complaint and supports the licensure board's investigative capacity. This means that while Engineer A satisfied the minimum ethical threshold by filing anonymously, Engineer A did not necessarily fulfill the most ethically robust version of the reporting obligation. The ethical duty to report under the Code is best understood as existing on a spectrum: silence constitutes a clear violation, anonymous filing satisfies the minimum obligation, and a signed complaint represents the fullest discharge of the duty. Engineer A's choice of anonymity is therefore ethically adequate but not ethically optimal, and the Board should have made this gradation explicit rather than treating permissibility as equivalent to full compliance with the spirit of the reporting obligation.
The Board's conclusion leaves unaddressed whether Engineer A was obligated to attempt collegial pre-reporting engagement with Engineer B before filing the complaint. Given that the alleged violation is described as serious, the better-reasoned position is that no such prior direct engagement was ethically required. Requiring an engineer to confront the alleged violator before reporting would risk alerting the subject, potentially enabling concealment of evidence, and would inappropriately shift the burden of professional discipline from the licensure board — the institution designed to adjudicate such matters — to the individual reporter. Furthermore, the seriousness of the violation is a material factor: minor or ambiguous infractions might warrant collegial inquiry first, but a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct triggers the reporting obligation directly and without a prerequisite of peer confrontation. The Board should have stated explicitly that the collegial pre-reporting engagement principle does not apply as a precondition when the alleged violation is serious, thereby clarifying the scope of the self-policing duty for future cases.
The Board's analysis, read in light of the BER 89-7 precedent, implies that the strength of the reporting obligation scales with the severity of the harm implicated by the alleged violation. In BER 89-7, the public safety dimension elevated the reporting duty to the point where confidentiality agreements could not suppress it. In the present case, the alleged violation involves the state board's rules of professional conduct rather than an immediate public safety threat, yet the Board still found reporting ethically appropriate. This suggests that the Code's reporting obligation under Section II.1.f is not limited to safety-critical violations but extends to any serious breach of professional conduct rules, reflecting the engineering profession's foundational interest in self-policing and maintaining public trust in licensure. However, the absence of a direct public safety nexus in the present case means that the urgency and mandatory character of the reporting duty, while still present, is somewhat less absolute than it would be in a BER 89-7-type scenario. Anonymous filing, which might be insufficient in an acute public safety emergency requiring immediate and credible action, is more defensible in the present context where the harm is professional and institutional rather than physical and immediate.
From a virtue ethics perspective, the Board's conclusion that anonymous filing is ethically permissible does not fully reckon with the question of whether it reflects the highest expression of professional character. Professional courage — the willingness to stand behind one's convictions and accept accountability for one's accusations — is a virtue central to engineering integrity. An engineer who files anonymously avoids the personal risk of retaliation but also avoids the reciprocal accountability that a signed complaint would impose: namely, the obligation to substantiate the claim and to be answerable if the complaint proves unfounded or malicious. Engineer A's disinterested motivation partially offsets this deficit in professional courage, because the absence of competitive or personal animus suggests the complaint is genuine rather than strategic. Nevertheless, the Board's conclusion should be understood as establishing a floor of ethical permissibility, not a ceiling of ethical excellence. Engineers who can sign their complaints without genuine risk of disproportionate retaliation should be understood to have a stronger ethical reason to do so, even when anonymity is procedurally available.
The Board's conclusion implicitly resolves, without explicitly addressing, the tension between Engineer B's procedural fairness interest in knowing the identity of the accuser and Engineer A's interest in reporting without fear of retaliation. The resolution embedded in the Board's reasoning is that Engineer B's procedural fairness interest is adequately protected by the licensure board's own investigative procedures — including its obligation to assess the credibility and sufficiency of the complaint before taking adverse action — rather than by requiring the complainant to identify themselves. This is a defensible resolution because the licensure board, not the complainant, is the adjudicative institution, and it is the board's procedural safeguards that protect Engineer B from unfounded accusations. However, the Board should have made explicit that the ethical permissibility of anonymous filing is contingent not only on the existence of a board procedure for accepting such complaints, but also on the board having adequate investigative safeguards to protect the accused from action based solely on an unverifiable anonymous allegation. Without such safeguards, anonymous filing could become an instrument of professional harm rather than a mechanism of legitimate self-policing.
Engineer A was not ethically required to contact Engineer B directly before filing a complaint with the state licensure board. When an engineer observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct, the gravity of that violation activates the reporting obligation under Code Section II.1.f immediately and independently. Requiring collegial pre-reporting engagement as a precondition to formal complaint would undermine the independence and integrity of the licensure board's disciplinary process, potentially allow the violating engineer to conceal or correct evidence, and place an undue burden on the reporting engineer that the Code does not impose. The seriousness of the alleged violation reinforces rather than relaxes this conclusion: the more serious the violation, the stronger the case for proceeding directly to the appropriate authority rather than attempting informal resolution first.
The anonymous nature of Engineer A's complaint creates a meaningful tension with Code Section III.7, which prohibits maliciously or falsely injuring another engineer's professional reputation. However, this tension does not render anonymous filing per se unethical. The prohibition in III.7 targets malicious or false injury, not the mere concealment of identity. Because Engineer A is a disinterested party with no competitive or personal stake in Engineer B's professional standing, the risk that the complaint is motivated by malice or fabrication is materially reduced. Engineer B's inability to identify or confront the accuser is a procedural fairness concern that the licensure board must manage through its own investigative procedures, but it does not transform a good-faith anonymous report into a violation of III.7. The ethical risk under III.7 would be substantially elevated if Engineer A were a competitor or had a personal grievance, because in those circumstances the anonymous format would shield a potentially malicious actor from accountability.
Engineer A's reporting obligation under Code Section II.1.f is triggered by 'knowledge of any alleged violation,' which the Code's own language frames in terms of belief and allegation rather than confirmed or adjudicated fact. Filing a complaint based on a sincere, good-faith belief that a serious violation occurred therefore satisfies the ethical threshold for reporting. Engineer A is not required to conduct an independent investigation sufficient to prove the violation before submitting a complaint; that investigative function belongs to the licensure board. The ethical obligation is to report credible, sincerely held observations to the appropriate authority, not to serve as a pre-adjudicator. However, Engineer A must be able to represent that the complaint is grounded in genuine observation rather than speculation, rumor, or inference unsupported by direct knowledge, because a complaint lacking any factual foundation would risk crossing into the territory prohibited by Section III.7.
Engineer A's status as a disinterested party — neither a competitor nor a personal acquaintance of Engineer B — strengthens the ethical legitimacy of the complaint by eliminating the most common sources of improper motivation. The Board should recognize that disinterested reporters occupy a particularly credible position in the profession's self-policing framework: their reports are more likely to reflect genuine concern for professional standards and public welfare rather than competitive advantage or personal animus. This does not mean that interested parties are categorically barred from reporting — the Code's reporting obligation applies to all engineers with knowledge of violations — but the Board may reasonably give greater initial credibility to complaints from disinterested sources and should scrutinize complaints from competitors or personal adversaries more carefully for signs of improper motivation before proceeding to formal investigation.
The tension between Engineer B's procedural fairness interest in knowing the identity of the accuser and Engineer A's interest in reporting without fear of retaliation is real but resolvable. Engineer B's procedural fairness interest is a legitimate concern that the licensure board must address through its own investigative framework — for example, by requiring corroborating evidence before proceeding to formal charges, or by declining to act on anonymous complaints that lack sufficient factual specificity. However, this interest does not override Engineer A's ethical permission to file anonymously where the board has established procedures for accepting such complaints. The licensing board, not Engineer A, bears the institutional responsibility for ensuring that Engineer B receives due process. Engineer A's ethical obligation is to report; the board's obligation is to adjudicate fairly. Conflating these two responsibilities would effectively nullify the anonymous reporting mechanism that the board itself has chosen to make available.
The mandatory reporting obligation under Code Section II.1.f can be ethically satisfied by an anonymous submission where the board has procedures for accepting such complaints, even though a signed complaint would be preferable and would strengthen the board's investigative capacity. The ethical duty to report is a floor, not a ceiling: it requires that the engineer bring the alleged violation to the attention of the appropriate authority, but it does not specify the form that report must take. An anonymous complaint that reaches the appropriate authority and provides sufficient factual detail to enable investigation fulfills the minimum ethical requirement. The preference for signed complaints is a policy preference grounded in evidentiary and procedural considerations, not an independent ethical mandate. However, Engineer A should understand that choosing anonymity may reduce the likelihood of a successful disciplinary outcome, and that a signed complaint would more fully honor the spirit of the self-policing obligation even if anonymity satisfies its letter.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer A fulfilled a categorical duty under the NSPE Code of Ethics by reporting the alleged violation to the appropriate authority, regardless of whether the complaint was signed or anonymous. Code Section II.1.f imposes an affirmative obligation on engineers with knowledge of alleged violations to report them, and this obligation is not conditioned on the form of the report. The duty is categorical in the sense that it applies independently of consequences: Engineer A was obligated to report whether or not the complaint would lead to disciplinary action, and whether or not Engineer A's identity was disclosed. The choice of anonymity does not negate the fulfillment of this duty, though a competing deontological consideration — Engineer B's right to procedural fairness — creates a secondary tension. On balance, the duty to report to the appropriate authority takes precedence, and the procedural fairness obligation is discharged by the board's institutional processes rather than by Engineer A's personal disclosure of identity.
From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate outcome of permitting anonymous complaints is likely superior to a regime that requires signed complaints as a condition of ethical compliance. A signed-only requirement would deter a significant number of good-faith reporters who fear professional retaliation, resulting in fewer complaints reaching the licensure board and a weaker self-policing mechanism overall. The reduction in investigative strength caused by any individual anonymous complaint is a real but bounded cost, whereas the chilling effect of a signed-only requirement would systematically suppress reporting across the entire profession. The net effect of anonymous reporting permissibility is therefore likely positive for both the profession and the public, even accounting for the evidentiary limitations of anonymous submissions. This consequentialist analysis supports the Board's conclusion that anonymous filing is ethically permissible where the board has established procedures for it.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's choice to file anonymously rather than sign the complaint reflects a partial deficit in professional courage, which is a virtue central to engineering integrity. A fully courageous engineer would stand behind a good-faith complaint with their professional identity, accepting the risk of retaliation as a cost of upholding professional standards. However, Engineer A's disinterested motivation — filing without competitive or personal advantage — substantially mitigates this deficit. The virtue of integrity is expressed not only through the form of the complaint but through the decision to report at all, particularly when Engineer A had no obligation arising from personal relationship or competitive interest. The anonymous filing is therefore ethically permissible but not fully virtuous; it represents the minimum expression of professional courage rather than its fullest realization. Engineer A's disinterested motivation partially redeems but does not fully offset the courage deficit inherent in anonymous filing.
If the state licensure board had no established procedure for accepting anonymous complaints, Engineer A would face a more demanding ethical situation but would not be ethically permitted to remain silent. Code Section II.1.f imposes an affirmative reporting obligation that does not contain an exception for personal discomfort or fear of retaliation. In the absence of an anonymous complaint procedure, Engineer A would be ethically obligated to file a signed complaint, because the alternative — silence — would constitute a failure to fulfill the mandatory reporting duty. Silence in that scenario would itself be an ethical violation, not a neutral choice. The availability of anonymous procedures is what makes anonymous filing ethically permissible; the absence of such procedures does not eliminate the reporting obligation but rather removes the anonymous option, leaving signed filing as the only ethically compliant path.
Drawing on the BER 89-7 precedent, if Engineer A's observation had also implicated an immediate public safety risk rather than a rules-of-professional-conduct violation alone, the ethical calculus would shift significantly toward requiring a more urgent and substantive report. BER 89-7 established that public safety obligations can override confidentiality commitments and that a brief or passing mention of a safety concern is insufficient — the engineer must take affirmative, effective action to protect the public. By analogy, where an immediate public safety risk is present, anonymous filing may be insufficient not because anonymity is categorically impermissible but because the urgency and gravity of the situation demand a report that enables the board to act quickly and effectively. An anonymous complaint that delays or weakens the board's response to an imminent safety threat would fail to satisfy the paramount obligation under Code Section II.1, even if it technically satisfies the minimum reporting requirement under II.1.f. In such circumstances, a signed, urgent, and detailed report would be ethically required.
If Engineer A had been a direct competitor of Engineer B, the Board's analysis of the reporting obligation would not change in its conclusion that a genuine violation must be reported, but it would require substantially greater scrutiny of Engineer A's motivation and the factual basis of the complaint. Competitive motivation does not categorically render a complaint impermissible — a competitor who genuinely observes a violation is still subject to the reporting obligation under Code Section II.1.f — but it raises the risk that the complaint is motivated by competitive advantage rather than professional integrity, which would implicate Code Section III.7's prohibition on maliciously injuring another engineer's professional reputation. In a competitive context, the anonymous format would be particularly problematic because it would shield a potentially self-interested actor from accountability while exposing Engineer B to reputational harm. The Board should therefore treat complaints from competitors with heightened scrutiny and may reasonably require additional corroboration before proceeding to formal investigation.
The tension between the mandatory misconduct reporting obligation and the signed complaint policy preference was resolved in favor of permitting anonymous filing, but only conditionally: the Board treated anonymity as an ethically adequate minimum rather than an ethically ideal choice. The reporting duty is non-negotiable — engineers with knowledge of violations must report — but the form of that report may be shaped by legitimate concerns such as fear of retaliation, provided the receiving board has a procedure that can act on anonymous submissions. This resolution teaches that the profession distinguishes between the threshold duty to report (absolute) and the manner of reporting (contextually flexible), and that procedural permissibility at the board level is the operative constraint that converts an otherwise suboptimal choice into an ethically sufficient one.
The tension between Engineer B's procedural fairness interest in knowing the identity of their accuser and Engineer A's interest in reporting without fear of retaliation was not fully resolved by the Board — it was instead deferred to the institutional design of the state licensure board. By conditioning ethical permissibility on whether the board has an established procedure for anonymous complaints, the Board implicitly delegated the fairness balancing function to the regulatory body: if the board accepts anonymous complaints, it has presumably built procedural safeguards — such as independent investigation — that protect Engineer B's due process interests without requiring accuser identification. This teaches that principle tensions between reporter protection and accused fairness need not be resolved at the individual engineer's level when a competent institutional framework absorbs and mediates that conflict.
The interaction between the disinterested professional duty to report and the collegial pre-reporting engagement principle reveals a hierarchy in which the seriousness of the alleged violation determines whether peer-to-peer engagement is ethically required before escalating to a licensure board. The Board's analysis — consistent with the BER 89-7 precedent — treats a serious rules-of-professional-conduct violation as sufficient to activate the reporting obligation directly, bypassing any collegial confrontation requirement. This prioritization reflects a deeper principle: the integrity and independence of the licensure board's disciplinary process would be undermined if engineers were routinely expected to negotiate or warn peers before reporting, since doing so could compromise evidence, allow remediation that obscures the violation, or create social pressure that suppresses legitimate complaints. The disinterested nature of Engineer A's motivation further reinforces this hierarchy, as it eliminates the concern that bypassing collegial engagement serves competitive or personal ends rather than professional self-policing.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked in BER 89-7
In BER Case 89-7, the confidentiality agreement between Engineer A and the building sale client did not bar Engineer A from reporting electrical and mechanical code violations that posed injury risk to building occupants — the Board held that public health and safety must take precedence over confidentiality obligations.
Confidentiality obligations, while significant, are not absolute — they yield to the engineer's duty to report apparent dangers to public health and safety, which is the primary purpose of the ethics code's public welfare provisions.
Engineer A BER 89-7 Confidentiality-Bound Building Sale Engineer
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
The Board resolves the tension by holding that confidentiality does not apply to public danger disclosure — the obligation to protect public safety is not merely a competing consideration but a categorical override of confidentiality in this context.
Is Engineer A ethically obligated to report Engineer B's apparent serious violation to the state licensing board, and does the absence of a personal or competitive relationship with Engineer B affect that obligation?
Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, has observed what he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B — an engineer with whom he has no competitive relationship and no personal acquaintance. Engineer A must decide whether to report this apparent violation to the state engineering licensure board or remain silent, recognizing that engineering is a self-policing profession and that the duty to report is not discretionary.
File a complaint with the state engineering licensure board regarding Engineer B's apparent serious violation of professional conduct rules, acting on the foundational self-policing duty that applies to every licensed engineer regardless of personal or competitive relationship with the alleged violator.
Decline to report the violation on the grounds that Engineer A has no personal acquaintance with Engineer B and therefore no standing or sufficient basis to initiate a formal complaint, treating the reporting duty as contingent on personal relationship.
Attempt to contact Engineer B directly to discuss the apparent violation before filing any formal complaint with the licensing board, applying the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm regardless of the seriousness of the alleged violation.
Engineer A — Disinterested Observing Licensed Professional Engineer
Should Engineer A file the complaint against Engineer B as a signed, identified complaint or as an anonymous complaint, and does the choice between these forms affect the ethical adequacy of the reporting act?
Having decided to file a complaint with the state engineering licensure board, Engineer A must choose the form in which to submit it. Engineer A has concerns about potential professional retaliation and competitive perception if identified, but also recognizes that a signed complaint is the professionally preferred approach and that anonymous filing may weaken the board's ability to investigate and prosecute the complaint. The board has an established procedure for accepting anonymous complaints.
Submit the complaint to the state licensing board with Engineer A's full name and contact information, enabling the board to call upon Engineer A for testimony and follow-up, satisfying fundamental fairness norms regarding Engineer B's right to know the accuser's identity, and demonstrating the professional courage that the self-policing character of engineering demands.
Submit the complaint without identifying information, relying on the board's established procedure for accepting anonymous complaints, satisfying the minimum ethical reporting obligation while accepting the practical limitation that the absence of an identified complainant may weaken the board's investigative and prosecutorial capacity.
Decline to file any complaint — signed or anonymous — because Engineer A's concerns about retaliation make identified filing feel too risky and anonymous filing feels professionally inadequate, effectively allowing the apparent serious violation to go unreported.
Engineer A — Reporting Licensed Professional Engineer
In choosing to file anonymously, is Engineer A obligated to recognize and weigh the case-weakening limitation of anonymous complaints, and does that limitation create a residual duty to reconsider signing the complaint?
Engineer A has chosen to file anonymously. Before doing so, Engineer A must consciously weigh the practical consequence that an anonymous complaint — lacking an identified complainant who can provide testimony, context, and follow-up information — may materially weaken the state board's ability to investigate and prosecute Engineer B. This is not merely a procedural consideration but an ethical one, because the purpose of reporting is to trigger effective enforcement action, and a weakened complaint may fail to achieve that purpose.
Recognize that the anonymous complaint may limit the board's investigative capacity, weigh that limitation against the concerns about retaliation and competitive perception, and proceed with anonymous filing as the ethically permissible minimum — accepting the tradeoff as a conscious professional judgment rather than an oversight.
Upon fully reckoning with the case-weakening limitation of anonymous filing and its impact on Engineer B's procedural fairness interests and the board's enforcement capacity, decide to step forward publicly with a signed complaint, acting on the policy preference for identified reporting and demonstrating the professional courage that the self-policing profession demands.
Submit the anonymous complaint without consciously considering how the absence of an identified complainant affects the board's ability to investigate and prosecute, treating anonymous filing as fully equivalent to signed filing in terms of professional responsibility discharge.
Engineer A — Anonymous Complainant Weighing Enforcement Effectiveness
Is Engineer A obligated to report out-of-discipline safety code violations to public authorities notwithstanding a client confidentiality agreement, and does a brief mention of those violations in a confidential client report satisfy the public safety reporting duty?
In the BER 89-7 precedent scenario, Engineer A is a structural engineer retained under a confidentiality agreement who learns from the client of electrical and mechanical code violations in the building — violations outside his engineering specialty — that could cause injury to building occupants. Engineer A must decide whether to report these out-of-discipline safety hazards to the appropriate public authorities, and whether a brief mention of the violations in his confidential structural report satisfies that obligation.
Notify the appropriate regulatory or enforcement authority — not merely the client — of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause injury to building occupants, recognizing that the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety supersedes the contractual confidentiality agreement and is not limited to Engineer A's structural engineering specialty.
Include a brief reference to the electrical and mechanical code violations in the confidential structural report delivered to the client, treating this mention as sufficient discharge of the safety reporting obligation without separately notifying public authorities who have enforcement jurisdiction over the hazards.
Decline to report the out-of-discipline code violations to any party beyond the client, on the grounds that the confidentiality agreement bars disclosure and that the violations fall outside Engineer A's structural engineering specialty, treating the contractual obligation as superseding the public safety reporting duty.
Engineer A — Structural Engineer Operating Under Confidentiality Agreement (BER 89-7)
What threshold of certainty must Engineer A have before filing a complaint, and does filing based on good-faith belief rather than confirmed knowledge satisfy the ethical reporting obligation while avoiding the prohibition against malicious or false injury to another engineer's reputation?
Engineer A must determine the threshold of certainty required before filing a complaint against Engineer B with the state licensing board. Engineer A believes he has observed a serious violation but has not independently confirmed every element of the alleged misconduct. The question is whether filing based on a good-faith belief — rather than confirmed, verified knowledge — satisfies the ethical reporting obligation without crossing into the territory of maliciously or falsely injuring another engineer's professional reputation.
Submit the complaint to the licensing board on the basis of Engineer A's sincere, good-faith belief that a serious violation has occurred, without waiting for independent verification of every element of the alleged misconduct, recognizing that the board's investigative process — not the complainant — is the appropriate mechanism for determining whether a violation actually occurred.
Withhold the complaint until Engineer A has independently confirmed, through additional investigation or evidence gathering, that Engineer B's conduct actually constitutes a violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct, treating verified knowledge rather than good-faith belief as the minimum threshold for ethical reporting.
Refrain from filing any complaint because Engineer A cannot be certain the conduct constitutes a violation, and because filing a complaint that turns out to be unfounded could constitute the kind of malicious or false injury to Engineer B's professional reputation that the NSPE Code prohibits, treating the risk of being wrong as a bar to reporting.
Engineer A — Reporting Engineer Assessing Evidentiary Threshold
Decision to File Complaint (Action 2) → Anonymous Complaint Received (Event 4)
Disinterested Professional Duty Demonstrated By Engineer A
Engineer A's decision to report Engineer B's violation, despite having no competitive interest to gain and no personal relationship that might motivate the report, exemplifies the principle that the reporting obligation is grounded in professional duty to the integrity of the profession rather than self-interest
The absence of competitive or personal relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B confirms that the report is motivated purely by professional duty, lending it heightened ethical legitimacy and illustrating the foundational principle that professional self-regulation depends on disinterested peer accountability
Disinterested Professional Duty to Report Peer Misconduct
Disinterested professional duty supports reporting; no competing self-interest complicates the obligation
Disinterested Professional Duty to Report Invoked by Engineer A
Engineer A observes a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, with whom he has no competitive or personal relationship, and files an anonymous complaint — the absence of competitive interest confirms the legitimacy of the reporting obligation and removes any appearance of improper motive.
The disinterested character of Engineer A's report — no competitive relationship, no personal grievance — strengthens the ethical legitimacy of the complaint and illustrates the professional duty basis of peer reporting as distinct from self-interested reporting.
Engineer A observes what appears to be a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, with whom he has no competitive or personal relationship
No tension with self-interest here; the absence of competitive relationship makes the reporting obligation cleaner and the ethical analysis more straightforward.
The duty of engineers to come forward with information on ethical violations by other engineers is a basic ethical obligation.
Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Filing State
From Engineer A's decision to report through submission of the anonymous complaint; secondary ethical question persists regarding adequacy of anonymous versus signed reporting
Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct
Engineer A's decision to file an anonymous rather than signed complaint with the licensure board
Resolution of whether anonymous reporting satisfies the professional reporting obligation, or subsequent signed complaint if required
Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation
Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Permissibility Assessment BER Case
Anonymous Reporting Ethical Permissibility Assessment Capability
Engineer A assessed that filing an anonymous complaint was ethically permissible, satisfying the minimum reporting obligation even though a signed complaint would have been preferable.
Engineer A submitted an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board, triggering assessment of whether anonymous filing satisfies professional reporting obligations.
Choosing to file anonymously while still fulfilling the core reporting obligation to the state licensing board
Engineer A Anonymous Filing Permissibility Assessment BER Case
Engineer A chooses to file anonymously rather than under his own name; the case raises whether anonymous reporting satisfies the professional duty to report
Anonymous Complaint Permissibility With Signed Complaint Preference Obligation
Engineer A's decision to file the complaint anonymously satisfies the minimum reporting obligation, though a signed complaint would have been the preferred and more professionally courageous approach; the anonymous filing is ethically permissible given that it accurately identifies Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation.
At the time of filing the complaint with the state engineering licensure board
{'relationship_to_respondent': 'No competitive relationship; no personal acquaintance', 'complaint_type': 'Anonymous', 'motivation': 'Disinterested professional duty; public interest', 'violation_type': 'State board rules of professional conduct'}
Engineer A observes a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, with whom he has no competitive or personal relationship, and files an anonymous complaint with the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation.
{'type': 'complainant_against', 'target': 'Engineer B Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint'}
{'type': 'reporting_to', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board'}
Anonymous Professional Conduct Complaint Filer Engineer
Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B
Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally
Engineer A Anonymous Reporting Adequacy Serious Violation BER Case
Engineer A files an anonymous rather than signed complaint against Engineer B for a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct, raising the question of whether anonymous filing adequately discharges the reporting obligation.
Engineer A's anonymous complaint filing may satisfy the minimum reporting obligation but may be insufficient to fully discharge the professional ethical duty if the licensing board's investigative capacity is materially limited by the absence of an identified complainant; a signed complaint would have been the preferred course of action.
NSPE BER guidance on anonymous complaint permissibility; state licensing board procedural norms
At the time of complaint filing and throughout the board's investigation
Engineer A BER 89-7 Brief Report Mention Insufficiency
Engineer A included only a brief mention of his conversation with the client about the code deficiencies in his confidential structural report, and took no further action to notify public authorities.
Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Obligation
Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not satisfy his obligation to notify the appropriate public authorities, because the confidential report was never transmitted to those authorities and therefore could not trigger enforcement action.
In his report, Engineer A made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
At the time of completing and delivering the confidential structural report
However, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party
In ruling that it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities
Engineer A BER 89-7 Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency Recognition
Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that his brief mention of electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not satisfy his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations
Engineer A included a brief mention of client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report but did not separately notify public authorities, which the BER ruled was insufficient
The BER's ruling that Engineer A's brief report mention was insufficient and that he was obligated to report the safety violations to appropriate public authorities notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'safety_violation_reported_to_authorities': False}
Retained to inspect a building prior to sale under a confidentiality agreement; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations outside Engineer A's specialty; Engineer A noted the disclosure in the report but failed to report safety violations to public authorities, which the Board ruled was unethical given the paramount duty to protect public health and safety.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Building Sale Client BER 89-7'}
{'type': 'regulatory_duty_to', 'target': 'State Licensing Board'}
Confidentiality-Bound Building Sale Engineer
Engineer A was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities
the structural report written by Engineer A was to remain confidential
Engineer A BER 89-7 Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse for Safety Reporting
Engineer A operated under a confidentiality agreement with the building sale client. The client disclosed known code violations and stated the building would be sold 'as is' with no remediation. Engineer A mentioned the violations briefly in his confidential report but did not notify any public authority.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse for Known Safety Code Violation Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to report the known electrical and mechanical code violations to the appropriate public authorities notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement with the client, because the NSPE Code designates public health and safety as 'paramount' — a designation that supersedes contractual confidentiality obligations.
in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party
Upon learning of the code violations and upon completing the structural report
Code Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety
the obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, and facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. (However) matters of public health and safety must take precedence
Engineer A BER 89-7 Out-of-Discipline Reporting Duty Activation
Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations — outside his structural engineering expertise — still activated a professional reporting duty to public authorities, though he failed to act on this recognition
Engineer A, a structural engineer, was informed by his client of electrical and mechanical code violations outside his discipline; he recognized the safety risk but did not report to public authorities
Engineer A recognized the deficiencies could cause injury to occupants (demonstrating awareness) but incorrectly concluded the confidentiality agreement and out-of-discipline nature excused him from reporting to public authorities
While Engineer A was not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he did realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client.
the client confided in Engineer A and informed him that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards.
Engineer A BER 89-7 Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting
Engineer A was retained to assess the structural integrity of a 60-year-old occupied apartment building under a confidentiality agreement. The client disclosed known electrical and mechanical code violations. Engineer A was a structural engineer, not an electrical or mechanical engineer.
Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Public Authority Reporting Obligation
Engineer A, a structural engineer, was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations disclosed by the client to the appropriate public authorities, notwithstanding that those violations fell outside his engineering specialty, because he recognized they could cause injury to building occupants.
Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations from the client during the course of providing structural engineering services
While Engineer A was not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he did realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
Engineer A Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Non-Requirement Serious Violation BER Case
The question arises whether Engineer A should have approached Engineer B directly before filing the anonymous complaint; the serious nature of the violation distinguishes this from the inadvertent violation scenario where collegial counsel is required first
Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Non-Requirement Obligation
Because the observed violation is characterized as serious, Engineer A was not obligated to approach Engineer B directly before filing the complaint; the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm applies to inadvertent or minor violations, not to serious violations of professional conduct rules.
Prior to filing the complaint with the state licensing board
Engineer A Competitive Interest Neutrality Disinterested Reporting BER Case
Engineer A is explicitly identified as a non-competitor of Engineer B, establishing that the reporting motivation is grounded in professional duty rather than competitive advantage, satisfying the neutrality requirement of this constraint.
Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
Engineer A's reporting decision must be grounded in genuine professional duty and public interest rather than competitive self-interest; because Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B, the reporting is presumptively disinterested and free from the competitive-motivation concerns that would otherwise require disclosure of competitive relationship to the board.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional self-policing norms
Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B
Engineer A Current Case Accused Engineer Procedural Fairness Interest Recognition
Accused Engineer Procedural Fairness Interest in Accuser Identity Recognition Capability
Engineer A was expected to recognize Engineer B's legitimate procedural fairness interest in knowing the identity of his accuser as a factor weighing in favor of a signed complaint
Engineer A filed anonymously, triggering the BER's analysis of Engineer B's procedural fairness interest in knowing his accuser's identity
The BER's articulation that Engineer B should have some idea of who made the charge against him and that it is fundamentally unfair not to know one's accuser, presented as a reason supporting the signed complaint preference
Engineer A (Current Case — Peer Misconduct Reporting)
Engineer A Current Case Anonymous Complaint Case-Weakening Acknowledgment
Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint. The Board noted that anonymous complaints may weaken enforcement but are not unethical, and that filing anonymously is preferable to filing nothing.
Anonymous Complaint Case-Weakening Limitation Acknowledgment Obligation
Engineer A, in choosing to file anonymously, was obligated to recognize and weigh the practical limitation that the absence of an identified complainant could weaken the state board's ability to investigate and prosecute the complaint against Engineer B.
not having an actual complainant involved in the board's complaint could weaken the case against an individual who may have violated the state board's rules of professional conduct
At the time of deciding how to file the complaint
Certainly a great deal more is accomplished by the filing of a legitimate anonymous complaint than by the filing of no complaint at all
Engineer A Current Case Anonymous Complaint Case-Weakening Weighing
Anonymous Complaint Case-Weakening Practical Limitation Weighing Capability
Engineer A was expected to recognize and weigh the practical limitation that his anonymous filing could weaken the licensing board's case against Engineer B by removing an identifiable complainant from the investigative process
Engineer A filed anonymously, and the BER noted this could weaken the board's case against Engineer B while still ruling the anonymous filing was not unethical
The BER's explicit identification of case-weakening as a practical consequence of anonymous filing, presented as a factor Engineer A should have weighed in his complaint filing decision
Engineer A Current Case Anonymous Complaint Permissibility Assessment
Engineer A exercised the capability to assess whether filing an anonymous complaint against Engineer B was ethically permissible, correctly determining it was permissible though not the preferred approach
Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint with the state licensing board regarding Engineer B's serious violation of professional conduct rules
Engineer A's decision to file an anonymous complaint, which the BER ruled was not unethical while noting the preference for a signed complaint
the Board is not willing to conclude that it would be unethical to submit an anonymous complaint.
Engineer A Current Case Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition
Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that public health and safety obligations pre-empt confidentiality constraints, as applied in the BER 89-7 precedent that informs the current case's analysis of reporting obligations
The current case references BER 89-7 to establish the principle that confidentiality does not excuse failure to report safety violations to public authorities
The Board's citation of BER 89-7 as establishing that public health and safety must take precedence over confidentiality obligations, applied as precedent in the current case
The NSPE Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Code Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
Engineer A Current Case Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that public health and safety obligations are paramount and override other considerations — including confidentiality and the absence of personal stake — in determining the duty to report professional misconduct
The BER applied the paramountcy of public health and safety to establish Engineer A's reporting obligations in both the BER 89-7 precedent and the current case
The BER's invocation of NSPE Code Section I.1.'s 'paramount' language to establish that public health and safety override confidentiality and other competing considerations
particularly where the public health and safety is at risk.
Engineer A Current Case Reporting Motivation Purity Self-Assessment
Reporting Motivation Purity Self-Assessment Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to confirm that his decision to report Engineer B's misconduct was grounded in pure professional duty rather than competitive self-interest or personal animus, given that he had no competitive relationship with or personal acquaintance with Engineer B
Engineer A's reporting motivation was confirmed as disinterested by the BER, strengthening the ethical legitimacy of the complaint
The BER's confirmation that Engineer A's reporting was disinterested — grounded in professional duty — because Engineer A was neither a competitor of nor personally acquainted with Engineer B
Engineer A's reporting is grounded in pure professional duty rather than competitive self-interest or personal animus, as Engineer A is neither a competitor of nor personally acquainted with Engineer B.
Engineer A Current Case Self-Policing Foundational Reporting Duty
Engineer A observed what appeared to be a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, with whom he had no competitive or personal relationship. Engineer A chose to file an anonymous complaint with the state licensing board.
Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, as a licensed professional engineer in a self-policing profession, to report Engineer B's apparent serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct to the appropriate public authorities, recognizing this as a basic ethical obligation of every licensed engineer.
The duty of engineers to come forward with information on ethical violations by other engineers is a basic ethical obligation
Upon observing the apparent serious violation by Engineer B
Engineering, like other profession, is a self-policing profession whereby licensed professional engineers have a fundamental obligation to report instances of unprofessional conduct to the appropriate public authorities
it is the Board's view that Engineer A clearly had a fundamental ethical obligation to cooperate with the state board
Engineer A Current Case Self-Policing Profession Reporting Duty Recognition
Disinterested Non-Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Duty Recognition Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that his professional duty to report Engineer B's serious violation arose from the foundational self-policing obligation of the engineering profession, independent of any competitive or personal relationship
Engineer A observed Engineer B's serious violation and filed a complaint with the state licensing board, with the BER confirming this was a duty-based obligation of the self-policing profession
Engineer A's decision to file a complaint with the state licensing board despite having no competitive relationship with or personal acquaintance with Engineer B, grounded in pure professional duty
Engineering, like other profession, is a self-policing profession whereby licensed professional engineers have a fundamental obligation to report instances of unprofessional conduct to the appropriate public authorities.
Engineer A Current Case Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Engagement Non-Requirement Recognition
Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Non-Requirement Recognition Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the serious nature of Engineer B's violation meant he was not required to approach Engineer B directly before filing a formal complaint with the state licensing board
Engineer A observed a serious violation by Engineer B and proceeded directly to filing a complaint without collegial pre-engagement
Engineer A's direct filing of a complaint with the state licensing board without first approaching Engineer B, which the BER confirmed was appropriate given the serious nature of the violation
Because the observed violation is characterized as serious, Engineer A was not obligated to approach Engineer B directly before filing the complaint with the state licensing board.
Engineer A Current Case Signed Complaint Policy Preference
Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint against Engineer B with the state licensing board. The Board found the anonymous complaint not unethical but expressed a clear policy preference for signed complaints.
Signed Complaint Public Step-Forward Policy Preference Obligation
Engineer A, having chosen to file an anonymous complaint, was subject to the professional policy preference that he step forward publicly with a signed complaint, because doing so would enable Engineer B to understand the context of the charges, satisfy fundamental fairness norms, and strengthen the board's enforcement capacity.
there are reasons why raising the issue via a signed letter vs. anonymously would be appropriate
At the time of filing the complaint with the state licensing board
Arguably, Engineer B should have some idea of who made the charge against him in order to understand the context in which the charges are being made
Engineer A Current Case Signed Complaint Policy Preference Self-Application
Signed Complaint Policy Preference Self-Application Capability
Engineer A was expected to recognize and apply the professional policy preference for stepping forward publicly with a signed complaint rather than filing anonymously, understanding that this preference serves professional accountability, fairness, and investigative effectiveness
Engineer A filed anonymously; the BER ruled this was not unethical but expressed the policy preference that engineers step forward publicly with signed complaints
The BER's statement that it makes good policy sense for an engineer to step forward and publicly raise an ethical concern with the state board, applied to Engineer A's anonymous filing decision
the Board believes that it makes good policy sense for an engineer to step forward and publicly raise an ethical concern with the state board.
there are reasons why raising the issue via a signed letter vs. anonymously would be appropriate.
Engineer A Disinterested Reporting Duty Recognition BER Case
Engineer A recognized that his professional obligation to report Engineer B's serious violation arose from duty alone, unaffected by the absence of any competitive or personal relationship with Engineer B.
Engineer A observed a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, a stranger and non-competitor, and proceeded to report it.
Filing a complaint with the state engineering licensure board against an engineer with whom he had no competitive or personal relationship
Engineer A Disinterested Reporting of Engineer B Serious Violation BER Case
Engineer A observes Engineer B's serious professional conduct violation; Engineer A has no competitive interest and no personal acquaintance with Engineer B, making the reporting duty unencumbered by any conflicting loyalty or self-interest
Disinterested Non-Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Engineer A, having observed what he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B — with whom he has no competitive or personal relationship — is obligated to report that violation to the state engineering licensure board.
Upon observing the serious violation and forming a reasonable belief that a violation has occurred
Engineer A Friendship Non-Reporting Prohibition Non-Applicability BER Case
Engineer A does not know Engineer B personally; the constraint confirms that neither the presence nor absence of personal relationship alters the professional reporting duty.
Friendship Non-Reporting Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A's lack of personal acquaintance with Engineer B means the friendship non-reporting prohibition is not directly triggered, but the underlying principle — that personal relationship status does not diminish the reporting obligation — applies equally: the absence of personal relationship provides no basis for non-reporting, just as the presence of friendship provides no basis for non-reporting.
NSPE Code of Ethics; state board rules of professional conduct
Upon observation of the serious violation
Engineer A Jurisdiction Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance BER Case
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Capability
Engineer A applied the applicable state board's threshold for triggering a mandatory reporting obligation, determining that the observed conduct met the standard of a serious violation warranting formal complaint.
Engineer A evaluated the observed conduct against the state board's rules of professional conduct to determine that a formal complaint was warranted.
Identifying the observed conduct as meeting the state board's rules of professional conduct violation threshold and filing accordingly
Engineer A Motivation Purity Disinterested Reporting BER Case
Engineer A has no competitive relationship with Engineer B and no personal relationship, confirming that the report is motivated solely by professional duty to uphold the standards of the profession and protect the public
Competitor Unlicensed Practice Reporting Motivation Purity Obligation
Engineer A's reporting is grounded in pure professional duty rather than competitive self-interest or personal animus, as Engineer A is neither a competitor of nor personally acquainted with Engineer B; this disinterested motivation satisfies and indeed exemplifies the motivation purity requirement for professional misconduct reporting.
Engineer A No-Personal-Relationship Non-Excuse for Non-Reporting BER Case
Engineer A does not know Engineer B personally, raising the implicit question of whether a stranger's violation triggers the same reporting duty as a colleague's or competitor's violation
No-Personal-Relationship Reporting Duty Non-Diminishment Obligation
Engineer A's lack of personal acquaintance with Engineer B does not diminish or excuse the reporting obligation; the duty to report arises from professional responsibility to the public and the licensure system, not from any personal relationship.
Thereafter, Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board
Engineer A Non-Competitor No-Personal-Relationship Reporting Duty BER Case
Engineer A, who neither competes with nor personally knows Engineer B, observes a serious violation and must determine whether these relational absences affect the reporting duty.
Non-Competitor No-Personal-Relationship Reporting Duty Non-Diminishment Constraint
Engineer A's lack of competitive relationship with Engineer B and absence of personal acquaintance with Engineer B do not diminish or excuse the duty to report the observed serious violation to the state licensing board; the reporting obligation arises from professional duty to the self-regulating profession and the public.
NSPE Code of Ethics; state board rules of professional conduct; self-policing profession norms
Engineer A Peer Violation Observation State
From the moment Engineer A observes the alleged violation through submission of the complaint
Non-Competitor Peer Conduct Reporting Obligation State
Engineer A's observation of Engineer B's alleged serious rules violation
Submission of anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board
Engineer A Reporting Motivation Purity Self-Assessment BER Case
Engineer A's reporting was grounded in pure professional duty, confirmed by the absence of any competitive relationship or personal acquaintance with Engineer B, establishing the disinterested character of the complaint.
Engineer A had no competitive or personal relationship with Engineer B, confirming that the motivation for reporting was professional duty rather than self-interest or animus.
Filing a complaint as a disinterested professional observer with no competitive or personal stake in the outcome
Engineer A Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Engagement Non-Requirement BER Case
Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Engagement Non-Requirement Recognition Capability
Engineer A correctly recognized that because the observed violation was serious, he was not obligated to approach Engineer B directly before filing the formal complaint with the state board.
The violation observed was characterized as serious, exempting Engineer A from the general collegial pre-engagement norm.
Proceeding directly to filing a board complaint without first seeking collegial clarification from Engineer B
Engineer A Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Reporting Non-Requirement BER Case
Engineer A observes a serious violation by Engineer B and proceeds directly to filing a board complaint without prior collegial engagement, which is consistent with the constraint that serious violations do not require collegial pre-reporting.
Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Non-Requirement Constraint
Because Engineer B's observed violation is characterized as serious, Engineer A is not required to approach Engineer B directly or afford an opportunity for voluntary correction before filing a formal complaint with the state licensing board; the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm does not apply to serious violations.
NSPE BER guidance distinguishing serious from inadvertent violations; state board rules of professional conduct
Prior to and at the time of complaint filing
Engineer A informing client of deficiencies (BER Case 89-7) before Engineer A writing structural report (BER Case 89-7)
Engineer A's observation of Engineer B's violation before Engineer A's submission of anonymous complaint
Engineer A's structural investigation (BER Case 89-7) before planned sale of the building (BER Case 89-7)
Engineer A's structural tests on building (BER Case 89-7) before client's disclosure of electrical and mechanical deficiencies (BER Case 89-7)
{'relationship_to_complainant': 'Unknown to complainant; no competitive or personal relationship', 'complaint_type': 'Anonymous complaint received', 'alleged_violation': 'Serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct'}
Engineer B is the subject of an anonymous complaint filed with the state engineering licensure board by Engineer A, alleging a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct.
{'type': 'respondent_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Anonymous Professional Conduct Complaint Filer'}
{'type': 'subject_of_investigation_by', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board'}
Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint
Engineer B Licensure Board Accountability Process BER Case
Engineer B is the subject of the anonymous complaint filed by Engineer A with the state engineering licensure board for an alleged serious violation of professional conduct rules
Engineer B, as a licensed professional engineer subject to the state board's rules of professional conduct, bears the underlying professional accountability obligation that the complaint process is designed to enforce; Engineer B is subject to the licensing board's investigative and disciplinary process.
Ongoing professional obligation as a licensed engineer
Engineer B Procedural Fairness Interest in Knowing Accuser Identity
Engineer B is the subject of an anonymous complaint and has no means of knowing who filed it or in what context the alleged violation was observed.
Engineer A (current case) — duty owed to Engineer B
Engineer A's obligation to consider filing a signed complaint was reinforced by Engineer B's legitimate interest in knowing who filed the complaint and in what context, so that Engineer B could meaningfully respond to the charges — a fundamental fairness interest that anonymous filing frustrates.
It is generally considered fundamentally unfair not to know who one's accuser is
State licensing board / professional engineering community
Engineer's Duty to Report Violations to State Licensing Board
Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
Engineer A in deciding to submit a complaint to the state engineering licensure board
Governs whether and how Engineer A is obligated to report the observed violation by Engineer B to the state engineering licensure board, including the ethical permissibility of doing so anonymously
Professional engineering community / state licensing boards
Professional Norms Governing Engineer's Duty to Report Known Violations to State Board
Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
Engineer A in evaluating the ethical propriety of anonymous versus identified complaint submission
Establishes the professional duty of engineers who observe violations by other licensees to report such knowledge to the relevant state regulatory authority, and frames the ethical question of whether anonymous reporting satisfies or undermines this duty
Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard (Self-Policing Duty)
Professional norms governing engineer duty to report ethical violations to state licensing boards
Engineer A clearly had a fundamental ethical obligation to cooperate with the state board as required by the plain language in the NSPE Code.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in framing the case
Invoked as the foundational professional obligation requiring engineers to report unprofessional conduct by other engineers to appropriate public authorities; frames the core ethical question of the case
Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked in BER Case Context
The Board affirms that engineering is a self-policing profession and that every licensed engineer has a basic ethical obligation to report instances of unprofessional conduct by other engineers to appropriate public authorities, regardless of whether the reporting engineer has a competitive or personal relationship with the alleged violator.
In this context, the self-policing obligation is triggered by Engineer A's observation of a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B — a violation that has no competitive dimension, making the reporting obligation even clearer and more unambiguous.
The self-policing obligation is unambiguous here; the only question is the modality of reporting (signed vs. anonymous), not whether to report at all.
it is the Board's view that Engineer A clearly had a fundamental ethical obligation to cooperate with the state board as required by the plain language in the NSPE Code.
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Applied to Engineer A
Engineer A has knowledge of what appears to be a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B and is obligated to report this to the state licensing board — the obligation exists regardless of whether Engineer A has a competitive relationship with Engineer B (here, he does not).
The reporting obligation is not contingent on competitive relationship; it applies whenever an engineer has knowledge or reason to believe another engineer has violated applicable rules — the absence of competitive interest here makes the obligation even cleaner.
The reporting obligation is clear; the only question is modality (signed vs. anonymous). The Board holds that the obligation to report is unambiguous and that Engineer A's anonymous filing satisfies the minimum ethical requirement.
Mandatory Misconduct Reporting Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B
Engineer A, observing a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by Engineer B — with whom he has no competitive or personal relationship — files a complaint with the state licensing board, fulfilling the professional obligation to report known violations regardless of personal stake
The reporting obligation applies with equal or greater force when the reporting engineer has no competitive motive, confirming that the duty is grounded in professional integrity rather than self-interest
The seriousness of the violation and the absence of personal acquaintance with Engineer B support direct reporting to the board rather than prior collegial engagement
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct
Engineer A as the normative basis for evaluating the ethical propriety of filing an anonymous complaint
Provides the overarching professional ethics framework governing Engineer A's obligation to report observed violations of professional conduct rules, including duties to the profession and the public
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section I.1 (Fundamental Canon on Public Safety)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in its analysis
Cited as the primary normative authority establishing the 'paramount' obligation of engineers to protect public health and safety, overriding client confidentiality duties
Observe and Assess Violation (Action 1) → Reporting Obligation Activated (Event 3)
Present Case Anonymous Complainant Identity Concealment Fairness
From filing of anonymous complaint through board proceeding
Engineer A (potential anonymous complainant)
Anonymous Complainant Identity Concealment Fairness State
Engineer B's position as accused engineer without knowledge of complainant identity, and the procedural fairness implications for the board proceeding
Resolution of board proceeding or disclosure of complainant identity
Engineer A's consideration of filing anonymous rather than signed complaint against Engineer B
Present Case Anonymous Reporting Adequacy
From Engineer A's awareness of Engineer B's potential misconduct through the Board's ethical analysis
The basic question in this case is whether an anonymous complaint is appropriate under the facts.
Engineer A's consideration of whether to file an anonymous vs. signed complaint against Engineer B with the state licensing board
Board's ruling that anonymous complaint is permissible but signed complaint is preferable
a great deal more is accomplished by the filing of a legitimate anonymous complaint than by the filing of no complaint at all
Engineer A's awareness of Engineer B's violation of state board rules of professional conduct and consideration of anonymous complaint filing
Present Case Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Permissibility Constraint Instance
Engineer A chose to file anonymously; the Board declined to find this unethical in the absence of compelling additional facts requiring identified filing.
In the absence of compelling additional facts, Engineer A did not act unethically by filing an anonymous complaint; anonymous filing is permissible and represents a meaningfully better outcome than filing no complaint at all, particularly given the public safety stakes.
NSPE BER Board deliberation on anonymous complaint policy
At the time of complaint filing decision
Present Case Engineer A Anonymous vs. Signed Complaint Policy Preference Constraint Instance
Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint against Engineer B with the state licensing board; the Board deliberated on whether anonymous filing was ethically permissible and whether a signed complaint was preferable.
Engineer A's anonymous complaint filing against Engineer B, while permissible, did not fully satisfy the professional policy preference for identified complaint filing; the Board's policy preference is that engineers step forward publicly with signed complaints to the state board.
NSPE BER Board deliberation on anonymous complaint policy; NSPE Code of Ethics
On the other hand, there are reasons why raising the issue via a signed letter vs. anonymously would be appropriate.
At the time of complaint filing with the state licensing board
Present Case Engineer A Client Confidentiality Reliance Modulation Constraint Instance
The client confided the code violations to Engineer A under a confidentiality agreement; the Board found that despite the confidential nature of the disclosure, the public safety obligation was paramount.
Engineer A (BER 89-7 precedent applied to present case)
Client Confidentiality Reliance Factor Escalation Modulation Constraint
The fact that the client affirmatively confided the electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A under a confidentiality agreement modulated — but did not eliminate — the escalation obligation; the client-confided nature of the information provided some basis for deliberation but could not override the paramount public safety obligation.
BER Case 89-7; NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1
From the moment of client disclosure through the reporting decision
Present Case Engineer A Self-Policing Profession Foundational Reporting Duty Constraint Instance
Engineer A observed what he believed to be a serious violation by Engineer B and was obligated by the foundational self-policing duty of the engineering profession to report it.
Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Constraint
As a licensed professional engineer in a self-policing profession, Engineer A was constrained by the foundational duty to report Engineer B's apparent serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct to the appropriate public authorities, regardless of personal relationship or competitive motivation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER Board ruling on self-policing profession duty
Upon observation of Engineer B's alleged serious violation
Present Case Engineer B Accuser Identity Fairness Constraint Instance
Engineer A filed anonymously; the Board noted that Engineer B should have some idea of who made the charge against him to understand the context, and that it is fundamentally unfair not to know one's accuser.
Engineer A (Present Case) — constrained in complaint filing decision by Engineer B's fairness interest
Accused Engineer Accuser Identity Fairness Constraint
Engineer B's legitimate interest in knowing the identity of the complainant — in order to understand the context of the charges — constrained Engineer A's anonymous filing decision by imposing a fairness-based policy preference for identified complaint filing, grounded in the principle that it is fundamentally unfair not to know one's accuser.
NSPE BER Board deliberation on procedural fairness in anonymous complaint proceedings
At the time of complaint filing and throughout board proceedings
Present Case Non-Competitor Peer Reporting Obligation
From Engineer A's awareness of Engineer B's misconduct through the Board's ethical ruling
Engineer A's reporting obligation toward Engineer B evaluated free from competitive motivation or personal loyalty considerations
Filing of complaint (anonymous or signed) with state licensing board
licensed professional engineers have a fundamental obligation to report instances of unprofessional conduct to the appropriate public authorities
Engineer A's observation of Engineer B's violation of state licensing board rules, with no competitive or personal relationship between them
Present Case Self-Policing Profession Peer Reporting Duty
From Engineer A's awareness of Engineer B's violation through filing of complaint (or failure to do so)
Self-Policing Profession Peer Reporting Duty Activation State
Engineer A's foundational professional obligation as a licensed engineer in a self-regulating profession to report Engineer B's misconduct to appropriate public authorities
Filing of complaint with appropriate public authority
Engineer A's awareness that Engineer B has violated state licensing board rules of professional conduct
Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer B's Obligation to Respond
Engineer B, as the subject of the complaint, is accountable to the state licensing board for the alleged serious violation of professional conduct rules — the self-policing framework of the profession requires that alleged violators answer to the appropriate public authority.
Professional accountability operates at the systemic level here — the licensing board complaint mechanism is the institutional expression of the profession's accountability framework, and Engineer B's obligation to respond to the complaint is an instance of professional accountability in action.
Accountability and procedural fairness are complementary rather than conflicting — the board process provides both accountability for alleged violations and procedural protections for the accused.
Professional Accountability of Engineer B Through Licensing Board Process
Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
Engineer B, as a licensed professional engineer, is subject to the profession's accountability mechanism through the state licensing board complaint process; Engineer A's report activates this accountability structure in response to an observed serious violation
Professional accountability requires that serious violations of state board rules of professional conduct be subject to formal review; the licensing board complaint mechanism is the institutional expression of the profession's commitment to self-regulation and accountability
The characterization of the violation as 'serious' supports invocation of the full accountability mechanism through the licensing board
Professional Violation Occurs (Event 1) → Violation Becomes Observed (Event 2)
Public Welfare Paramount Applied in BER 89-7 Confidentiality Override
In BER Case 89-7, the Board ruled that Engineer A's obligation to protect public safety overrode the confidentiality agreement with the client — the word 'paramount' in NSPE Code Section I.1 establishes that public health and safety takes precedence over client confidentiality obligations.
Public welfare is not merely one consideration among many — it is paramount, meaning it overrides competing obligations including contractual confidentiality when public health and safety are at genuine risk from known code violations.
Public welfare paramount overrides confidentiality; the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' is interpreted as establishing a lexical priority rather than a mere balancing factor.
matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit an anonymous letter to the state engineering licensure board?
Should Engineer A have attempted to contact Engineer B directly before filing a complaint with the state licensure board, and does the seriousness of the alleged violation affect that obligation?
Does the anonymous nature of the complaint expose Engineer A to any risk of violating the prohibition against maliciously or falsely injuring another engineer's professional reputation, given that Engineer B cannot identify or confront the accuser?
What threshold of certainty must Engineer A have about the alleged violation before filing a complaint, and does filing based on mere belief rather than confirmed knowledge satisfy the ethical reporting obligation under the Code?
Does the fact that Engineer A is neither a competitor nor a personal acquaintance of Engineer B strengthen the ethical legitimacy of the complaint, and should the Board treat disinterested reporters differently from those with a potential personal or competitive stake?
Does the principle of accused engineer procedural fairness conflict with the principle of anonymous reporting permissibility, and if so, how should a licensing board weigh Engineer B's right to confront an accuser against Engineer A's interest in reporting without fear of retaliation?
Does the mandatory misconduct reporting obligation conflict with the signed complaint policy preference when Engineer A fears professional retaliation, and can the ethical duty to report ever be fully satisfied by an anonymous submission that may weaken the evidentiary value of the complaint?
Does the engineering self-policing obligation conflict with the collegial pre-reporting engagement principle, and does requiring engineers to first confront a peer before reporting undermine the integrity and independence of the licensure board's disciplinary process?
Does the disinterested professional duty to report conflict with the public welfare paramount principle when the alleged violation does not directly implicate public safety, raising the question of whether Engineer A's reporting obligation is equally strong for procedural or administrative violations as it is for violations that endanger the public?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill a categorical duty to report Engineer B's alleged violation, independent of whether the complaint was signed or anonymous, given that the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes an affirmative obligation on engineers with knowledge of violations to report them to appropriate authorities?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer B's right to know the identity of their accuser — as a matter of procedural fairness — create a competing duty that constrains Engineer A's otherwise permissible choice to file anonymously, and if so, how should those duties be ranked?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the weakening effect of an anonymous complaint on the licensure board's investigative capacity — reducing the likelihood of a successful disciplinary outcome — outweigh the benefit of encouraging reluctant reporters to come forward, such that anonymous reporting produces worse aggregate outcomes for the profession and the public than a signed complaint would?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does choosing to file anonymously rather than signing the complaint reflect a deficit in professional courage — a virtue central to engineering integrity — even when anonymity is procedurally permissible, and does Engineer A's disinterested motivation partially redeem or fully offset that deficit?
If Engineer A had first approached Engineer B directly to discuss the alleged violation before filing any complaint, would that collegial pre-reporting engagement have been ethically required, ethically preferable, or ethically neutral — and would it have changed the Board's conclusion about the permissibility of the anonymous filing?
If Engineer A had been a direct competitor of Engineer B, would the Board's analysis of the reporting obligation have changed materially — specifically, would competitive motivation have rendered the anonymous complaint ethically impermissible even if the underlying violation was genuine?
If the state licensure board had no established procedure for accepting anonymous complaints, would Engineer A have been ethically obligated to file a signed complaint rather than simply declining to report — and would silence in that scenario itself constitute an ethical violation?
Drawing on the BER 89-7 precedent, if Engineer A's observation of Engineer B's violation had also implicated an immediate public safety risk — rather than a rules-of-professional-conduct violation alone — would the ethical calculus have shifted to require a signed, urgent report, making anonymous filing insufficient regardless of board procedure?
Signed Complaint Preference Applied to Engineer A's Reporting Decision
The Board holds that it makes good policy sense for Engineer A to step forward publicly and raise the ethical concern with the state board via a signed letter, because Engineer B should have some idea of who made the charge and in what context, and because an identified complainant strengthens the board's case.
Professional courage and institutional effectiveness both favor signed reporting; the Board's policy recommendation reflects the principle that engineers should not hide behind anonymity when they have a professional duty to report and no compelling reason to remain anonymous.
The Board does not mandate signed reporting but expresses a clear preference for it as a matter of professional virtue and good policy, leaving the engineer to exercise judgment about whether circumstances justify anonymity.
State Engineering Licensure Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct
Engineer A (as the standard allegedly violated by Engineer B)
Engineer A believes Engineer B has committed a serious violation of these rules, which forms the basis of the complaint submitted to the state board
{'authority_type': 'State engineering licensure board', 'function': 'Receives and investigates professional conduct complaints', 'jurisdiction': 'State-level engineering licensure'}
The state engineering licensure board that receives complaints about professional conduct violations; serves as the appropriate public authority to which engineers must report ethical violations by other engineers; the Board's rules of professional conduct establish the standards against which Engineer B's conduct is evaluated.
{'type': 'receives_complaint_from', 'target': 'Anonymous Professional Conduct Complaint Filer Engineer'}
{'type': 'subject_of_complaint', 'target': 'Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint'}
Engineer A clearly had a fundamental ethical obligation to cooperate with the state board
it makes good policy sense for an engineer to step forward and publicly raise an ethical concern with the state board
the filing of a legitimate anonymous complaint
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (Referenced in Case)
State Board Rules of Professional Conduct governing licensed engineers
State licensing board; Engineer A as complainant
Referenced as the regulatory framework to which complaints about Engineer B's conduct are to be submitted; the rules whose violation is the subject of the complaint
Submit Complaint Anonymously (Action 3) → Ethical Permissibility Established (Event 6)
Withhold Safety Violation Report (Action 4 — BER 89-7) → BER 89-7 Safety Harm Materializes (Event 5)
Withhold Safety Violation Report (BER 89-7)
client's disclosure of building deficiencies to Engineer A (BER Case 89-7) during Engineer A's provision of structural engineering services (BER Case 89-7)