ProEthica Case 127 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.606554
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

At-Will Employment Symmetry Principle
type: At-WillEmploymentEthicsAnalogyFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review reasoning
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: At-Will Employment Reciprocity Reasoning
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: At-Will Employment Ethics Analogy Framework
sourcetext: This approach is in essence the 'flip side' of the standard employment relationship where an employer, with few exceptions, may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer 'at will.' While the departure of an employee is often disruptive and costly to an employer's operations as well as to a client's needs, this is the price that a free society pays in striking a balance between the rights of individual employees and the legitimate business considerations in the employment market.
textreferences: This approach is in essence the 'flip side' of the standard employment relationship where an employer, with few exceptions, may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer 'at will.' While the departure of an employee is often disruptive and costly to an employer's operations as well as to a client's needs, this is the price that a free society pays in striking a balance between the rights of individual employees and the legitimate business considerations in the employment market.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating whether Engineer A's offer to Engineer C was ethical
usedincontext: Applied to justify the ethical permissibility of Engineer C's departure from Firm X and Engineer A's hiring of Engineer C, in the absence of a written non-compete agreement
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.617619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER-Post-Employment-Competition-Case-Precedents
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Post-Employment Competition and Client Solicitation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
usedby: Ethics reviewers and Engineer B in assessing Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Provides analogical precedential reasoning for evaluating whether Engineer A's conduct — departing a firm, recruiting its employees, and soliciting its clients with disparaging statements — violates professional ethics obligations.
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.615238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER Case No. 77-11
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 77-11
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In Case No. 77-11, the Board found that four engineers who left the employ of a firm, founded a new firm, and contacted the clients of the former firm were not in violation of the NSPE Code for doing so. However, the Board determined in Case No. 77-11 that the four engineers violated the NSPE Code with regard to projects for which they had gained specialized knowledge while in the employ of the firm.
textreferences: In Case No. 77-11, the Board found that four engineers who left the employ of a firm, founded a new firm, and contacted the clients of the former firm were not in violation of the NSPE Code for doing so. However, the Board determined in Case No. 77-11 that the four engineers violated the NSPE Code with regard to projects for which they had gained specialized knowledge while in the employ of the firm.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning on specialized knowledge restrictions and client contact
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers who leave a firm and contact former clients are not per se in violation of the NSPE Code, but that contacting clients on projects for which they gained specialized knowledge while employed does constitute a violation
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.607221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER Case No. 79-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 79-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In Case No. 79-10, the BER determined that an engineer employed by a firm that was winding down its operations, and who sought to offer his services to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of the principal of his employing firm, was ethical.
textreferences: In Case No. 79-10, the BER determined that an engineer employed by a firm that was winding down its operations, and who sought to offer his services to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of the principal of his employing firm, was ethical.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning on engineer independence during firm dissolution
usedincontext: Cited as precedent finding it ethical for an engineer employed by a winding-down firm to offer services to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of the firm's principal
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.617080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER Case No. 86-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 86-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in Case No. 86-5, a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job that was planned.
textreferences: The Board concluded that, according to a strict interpretation of the Code, it would be ethical for Engineers X, Y, and Z to agree to a contract for consulting services independent of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: in Case No. 86-5, a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job that was planned.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning on engineer departure and client solicitation
usedincontext: Cited as precedent where engineers who developed a proposal for their firm were approached directly by the client and, after disclosing to their employer and resigning, were found ethically permitted to contract independently with the client
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.616929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER Case No. 97-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 97-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
textreferences: unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to distinguish Engineer A's conduct from a more ethically defensible scenario
usedincontext: Cited as a distinguishing precedent where client impetus (the client approaching the engineer and encouraging independent practice) mitigated the ethical concerns about an engineer departing to compete — contrasted with the present case where no such client impetus existed
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.617278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER Client-Impetus Mitigating Factor Assessment Application
type: Client-ImpetusMitigatingFactorAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Impetus Mitigating Factor Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER exercised the capability to assess whether client-initiated impetus was present in the current case — distinguishing it from BER 97-2 where the client proactively encouraged the engineer — and correctly determined that the absence of client impetus in Engineer A's case meant no mitigation applied to his competitive solicitation conduct.
casecontext: BER's ethical analysis of Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The BER's explicit comparison of the present case to BER 97-2 and determination that the absence of client impetus was a critical factual distinction that removed a potential mitigating factor from Engineer A's conduct.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Moreover, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
textreferences: Moreover, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.614000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER Employment Transition Multi-Precedent Synthesis Application
type: BERMulti-PrecedentEmploymentTransitionEthicsSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Precedent Employment Transition Ethics Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER exercised the capability to retrieve and synthesize multiple precedent cases (BER 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, 97-2) on engineer employment transitions, identify factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, and apply the synthesized framework to reach a justified ethical conclusion about Engineer A's conduct.
casecontext: BER's ethical analysis of Engineer A's departure from Firm X and subsequent competitive conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's systematic review of Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, and 97-2, extraction of the three-party balance framework, and application to Engineer A's specific conduct.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In each instance, the Board has sought to strike a fair balance between the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity, coupled with the obligation and responsibility of that engineer to his/her former employer and/or clients.
textreferences: Considering all factors and earlier BER cases on this issue, the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct.
textreferences: In each instance, the Board has sought to strike a fair balance between the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity, coupled with the obligation and responsibility of that engineer to his/her former employer and/or clients.
textreferences: In reaching its conclusion in Case No. 86-5, the Board reviewed two earlier BER cases, Nos. 77-11 and 79-10.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.613585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

BER Multi-Party Competing Interest Fair Balance Reasoning Application
type: Multi-PartyCompetingInterestFairBalanceReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Party Competing Interest Fair Balance Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER exercised the capability to identify and fairly weigh the three competing legitimate interests — client choice of firm, individual engineer career mobility, and incumbent firm business goodwill — and apply this three-party balance framework to evaluate the ethics of Engineer A's conduct.
casecontext: BER's ethical analysis of the competing interests in Engineer A's employment transition case
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The BER's explicit articulation of the three-party balance framework and its application to distinguish permissible competitive conduct (offering employment to Engineer C) from impermissible conduct (disparaging Firm X to its clients).
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In reviewing each case, the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients.
textreferences: In reviewing each case, the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients.
textreferences: Moving to the specific facts of this case and balancing the interests of all parties involved in this matter, the Board believes that Engineer A's actions in offering a position to Engineer C was not in and of itself unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.613777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Case 127 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 4
event count: 6
total elements: 10
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Case No. 77-11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Case No. 79-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Case No. 86-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

CausalLink_Departure Non-Competition Repr
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

CausalLink_Disparaging Firm X to Clients
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer C Accepts Employment
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

CausalLink_Recruiting Firm X Employee
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

City Case 86-5 Municipal Client Directly Soliciting Firm Staff
type: MunicipalClientDirectlySolicitingFirmStaff
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'action': 'Direct solicitation of individual engineers away from employing firm', 'procurement_right': 'Right to retain engineers of its choice'}
caseinvolvement: The city in Case 86-5, upon learning which engineers actually developed the proposal, directly approached Engineers X, Y, and Z to retain them as independent consultants outside the employing firm, exercising its right to choose engineers while raising questions of fair dealing with the firm.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'former_contract_with', 'target': 'Engineer A Firm Principal'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited', 'target': 'Engineers X Y Z'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Client Directly Soliciting Firm Staff
sourcetext: a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job
textreferences: No one can deny that a client has a right to retain the engineering firm of its choice
textreferences: a city official approached Engineers X, Y, and Z and asked if they would agree to a contract as consultants, independent of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.619335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Competitor-Conduct-in-Procurement-Standard
type: CompetitorConductinProcurementStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Competitor Conduct in Procurement Contexts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Competitor Conduct in Procurement Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
usedby: Engineer A (as obligation bearer)
usedincontext: Applicable to Engineer A's approach to Firm X's existing clients, where Engineer A exploits knowledge of Firm X's internal staffing situation to disparage Firm X's capacity and gain competitive advantage in securing those clients for Firm Y.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.615021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 404
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 201
answers question4: 301
answers question5: 304
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that it was ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C, the ethical permissibility of that recruitment rests on a narrow but important foundation: Engineer C had no written non-compete agreement and possessed no specialized knowledge that would restrict her competitive mobility. However, the Board's clean approval of the recruitment act in isolation obscures a morally significant complication — Engineer A's subsequent use of Engineer C's anticipated departure as the evidentiary basis for his capacity disparagement of Firm X transforms the recruitment from an independently permissible act into the first step of an integrated strategy of competitive harm. The ethical permissibility of the offer to Engineer C does not immunize the recruitment from scrutiny when it is viewed as part of that larger scheme. A more complete analysis would distinguish between the recruitment act considered in isolation, which is permissible, and the recruitment act considered as a deliberate instrument for manufacturing the very condition Engineer A then exploited to undermine Firm X's client relationships, which raises independent ethical concerns under the self-caused incapacity non-exploitation principle.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's approval of Engineer A's offer to Engineer C should be read subject to an implicit temporal and representational constraint that the Board did not articulate: Engineer A's pre-departure representation that he would operate a one-person consulting firm and would not compete with Firm X created a residual ethical obligation that did not simply expire upon his departure. While that representation does not function as a legally enforceable non-compete covenant, it constitutes a voluntary professional undertaking of the kind that NSPE ethics doctrine treats as binding on a person's subsequent conduct. The act of recruiting Engineer C — which necessarily expanded Firm Y beyond a one-person operation and placed Engineer A in direct competition with Firm X for staff — was not merely a business decision but a breach of a self-imposed professional commitment. The Board's conclusion that the offer to Engineer C was ethical is therefore incomplete unless it is understood to address only the narrow question of whether Engineer C's at-will status and absence of specialized knowledge made the recruitment permissible in the abstract, not whether Engineer A's prior representation had already foreclosed that option as a matter of professional integrity.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.6.
cited provision3: III.1.e.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully addresses the surface-level misrepresentation but does not fully account for the compounded ethical wrong embedded in the self-caused incapacity dynamic. Engineer A's statements to clients were not merely false or misleading in the conventional sense — they were predictions about a condition that Engineer A himself had engineered by recruiting Engineer C. This distinguishes Engineer A's conduct from ordinary competitive disparagement, where a competitor observes and then comments on a rival's weakness. Here, Engineer A manufactured the weakness, then presented it to clients as an objective fact about Firm X's capacity, without disclosing that he was the cause of the very deficiency he was citing. This constitutes a form of artful misrepresentation that violates the prohibition on technically true but misleading statements: the prediction that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' may have been accurate in a narrow factual sense, but it was profoundly misleading because it omitted the material fact that Engineer A's own recruitment of Engineer C was the source of that anticipated incapacity. The ethical violation is therefore not only one of competitor reputation injury but also one of material omission in a client communication that was designed to redirect business.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 104
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion on the client disparagement question implicitly resolves, but does not openly address, the tension between the client autonomy principle and the prohibition on engineer-manipulated transitions. Firm X's clients have a genuine and legitimate interest in accurate information about whether their engineering service provider can fulfill its contractual obligations. In principle, a competitor who possesses credible information about a rival's capacity limitations could argue that disclosing that information serves client interests. However, Engineer A's situation forecloses this argument for two independent reasons. First, Engineer A was not a neutral observer reporting an independently existing condition — he was the agent who created the condition he was reporting. Second, Engineer A's statements were framed not as neutral disclosures but as affirmative solicitations directing clients to hire Firm Y, which reveals that the client interest rationale was pretextual. The Board's conclusion is therefore correct, but a fuller analysis would make explicit that the client autonomy principle cannot be invoked to justify capacity disparagement when the disparaging party is both the cause of the capacity deficit and the direct commercial beneficiary of the client's resulting anxiety.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 305
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Neither of the Board's explicit conclusions addresses the ethical position of Engineer B, whose decision to report Engineer A's misconduct to a licensing board is complicated by Engineer B's status as a principal of Firm X — the direct commercial competitor harmed by Engineer A's conduct. The engineering profession's self-policing obligation is genuine and important, and Engineer B's report may well be substantively correct and professionally warranted. However, the mixture of motives present in Engineer B's situation — a sincere professional duty to report misconduct combined with a direct competitive interest in suppressing Engineer A's client solicitation — raises a question the Board left unresolved: whether the ethical quality of a self-policing act is diminished when the reporting party stands to benefit commercially from the outcome of the report. A more complete analysis would conclude that Engineer B's competitive interest does not nullify the reporting obligation, but it does impose a heightened duty of accuracy and good faith on Engineer B's report, and it would be ethically problematic for Engineer B to use the licensing board complaint as a strategic instrument to amplify reputational harm to Engineer A beyond what the facts warrant.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: A dimension of the case that the Board's conclusions leave entirely unaddressed is the independent ethical position of Engineer C. Engineer C is treated throughout the Board's analysis as a passive object of recruitment rather than as a moral agent with her own professional obligations. However, if Engineer A's representations to Firm X's clients about Engineer C's departure were made without Engineer C's knowledge or consent — and particularly if those representations mischaracterized her intentions, her timeline, or the terms of any commitment she had made to Firm Y — Engineer C may bear an independent ethical obligation to correct the record. The NSPE Code's requirements of honesty and professional integrity apply to Engineer C as well, and if she became aware that her name was being used to undermine Firm X's client relationships in ways she had not authorized, silence could constitute a form of complicity in Engineer A's misrepresentation. This analysis does not alter the Board's conclusions but identifies an ethical actor whose obligations the Board's framework did not reach.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 402
answers question3: 403
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Engineer A to make representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, that Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's pre-departure representation that he would operate a one-person consulting firm and would not compete with Firm X created a binding ethical obligation that extended beyond the moment of departure. Although no formal contractual non-compete agreement existed, the voluntary and specific nature of the representation — made to a party who would foreseeably rely on it — generated a moral duty of fidelity that constrained Engineer A's subsequent competitive conduct. The scope of that obligation encompassed at minimum the specific competitive behaviors Engineer A implicitly disclaimed: soliciting Firm X's employees and leveraging Firm X's client relationships through disparagement. The duration of the obligation is not indefinite, but it persists long enough to be meaningful — a month after departure is plainly within its operative window. Engineer A's conduct fell squarely within the zone of behavior his own representation foreclosed, making the ethical violation not merely one of misrepresentation at the moment of departure but a continuing breach of the reliance interest he voluntarily created.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 305
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer B's competitive motivation for reporting Engineer A's misconduct to a licensing board is ethically relevant but does not nullify the self-policing obligation Engineer B otherwise bears. The engineering profession's self-policing norm is grounded in the collective interest of the profession and the public, not in the purity of any individual reporter's motives. A report that is factually accurate and describes genuine ethical violations retains its professional legitimacy even when the reporter benefits competitively from the outcome. However, the mixture of motives is not ethically irrelevant: Engineer B bears a heightened obligation of accuracy and restraint, must not exaggerate or fabricate elements of the complaint to gain competitive advantage, and should be transparent about the competitive relationship if asked by the licensing board. The ethical quality of Engineer B's act is diminished — but not negated — by the competitive interest. The self-policing duty survives; the virtue of the act is partial rather than complete.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 301
answers question4: 303
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Even if Engineer A's statements about Firm X being 'hard pressed' were technically accurate at the moment of utterance, the self-caused nature of the condition he was exploiting transforms the ethical character of those statements into an independent violation distinct from simple misrepresentation. Engineer A engineered the very staff departure he then weaponized as evidence of Firm X's incapacity. This self-caused incapacity exploitation dynamic means that even a technically true statement becomes ethically impermissible because Engineer A was the proximate cause of the condition he was representing to clients as a reason to abandon Firm X. The ethical wrong is not reducible to falsity alone — it encompasses the manipulation of a situation Engineer A himself created to generate a self-fulfilling competitive advantage. This represents a distinct violation of the prohibition on injuring a competitor's professional reputation through improper means, layered on top of and independent from any misrepresentation violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 106
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer C bears a limited but real independent ethical obligation in this scenario. If Engineer A's representations to Firm X's clients materially mischaracterized Engineer C's intentions, timeline, or commitment to leaving — for example, if Engineer C had not yet formally accepted the offer or had not yet decided to leave — then Engineer C's silence in the face of those misrepresentations, once she became aware of them, would be ethically problematic. The obligation is not absolute: Engineer C is not required to police Engineer A's conduct or to affirmatively contact Firm X's clients. However, if Engineer C knew that Engineer A was using her anticipated departure as a lever to mislead clients and she took no corrective action within her reasonable reach — such as clarifying her actual status to Firm X — she would be passively complicit in a misrepresentation that affected third parties. The strength of this obligation scales with Engineer C's actual knowledge of Engineer A's client communications and the degree to which those communications misrepresented her situation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The principle of free and open competition does conflict with the self-caused incapacity non-exploitation principle in this case, and the conflict is resolved against Engineer A. Free and open competition permits Engineer A to recruit Engineer C and to solicit Firm X's clients on the merits of Firm Y. It does not, however, permit Engineer A to use the departure he engineered as the evidentiary predicate for a capacity disparagement campaign against Firm X. The boundary between permissible competition and impermissible exploitation is crossed when a competitor manufactures the very condition he then represents as an independent fact about his rival's weakness. The free competition principle is a boundary condition that enables legitimate rivalry; it is not a license to construct and then exploit self-fulfilling incapacity narratives. The self-caused incapacity non-exploitation principle operates as a constraint within the competitive space, not as a denial of that space.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The at-will employment symmetry principle — which grants Engineer C full freedom to accept Engineer A's offer — does conflict with the client autonomy principle when Engineer A uses Engineer C's anticipated departure as a lever to manipulate client decision-making before Engineer C has formally committed to leaving or actually departed. Client autonomy is genuinely served when clients receive accurate, timely, and unmanipulated information about their service providers' capacity. When Engineer A presents Engineer C's departure as a fait accompli to clients before it is one, he is not informing client autonomy — he is manufacturing a false urgency that forecloses the deliberative space client autonomy requires. The at-will symmetry principle protects Engineer C's freedom to leave; it does not authorize Engineer A to weaponize the anticipation of that freedom as a premature and misleading representation to third parties. The two principles operate in different domains and the conflict is resolved by recognizing that Engineer C's mobility rights and Engineer A's representational duties to clients are analytically separable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 104
answers question4: 303
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.6.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The tripartite interest balancing principle does create tension with the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique, but this tension does not justify Engineer A's conduct. Clients do have a genuine interest in accurate information about their service providers' capacity, and in principle some form of candid competitive communication could serve that interest. However, the resolution of this tension requires that any competitive communication be accurate, not self-caused, and not framed as a directive to abandon the incumbent firm. Engineer A's statements failed on all three counts: they were misleading in framing a contingent future departure as a present incapacity, they described a condition Engineer A himself engineered, and they were structured as client solicitations rather than neutral disclosures. A communication that genuinely served client interests in accurate information would have been factually precise, would have disclosed Engineer A's role in creating the situation, and would have left the client to draw their own conclusions. Engineer A's actual communications served his competitive interests at the expense of client deliberative autonomy and Firm X's reputation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 305
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The conflict between Engineer B's self-policing obligation and the honesty in professional representations principle is real but manageable. The risk that a licensing board complaint becomes a strategic business weapon rather than a good-faith professional duty is genuine when the reporter has a direct competitive interest in the outcome. The resolution is not to excuse Engineer B from the self-policing obligation — that obligation exists independently of motive — but to impose on Engineer B a heightened duty of accuracy and completeness in the complaint itself. Engineer B must not overstate the violations, must not omit facts that would contextualize Engineer A's conduct favorably, and should disclose the competitive relationship to the licensing board so that the board can weigh the report accordingly. If Engineer B meets these conditions, the self-policing act retains its ethical legitimacy despite the competitive motivation. If Engineer B uses the complaint as an opportunity to exaggerate or fabricate, the honesty principle is violated and the self-policing act becomes itself an ethical violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A violated a categorical duty of honesty by making representations about Firm X's capacity that he knew — or should have known — were misleading, regardless of whether those representations ultimately harmed Firm X's client relationships. The deontological wrong is located in the act of making misleading representations, not in their consequences. Engineer A's statements framed a contingent and self-caused future condition as a present and independent fact about Firm X's incapacity. A rational agent applying the categorical imperative could not universalize a maxim permitting competitors to represent self-engineered staff departures as independent evidence of a rival's incapacity — such a maxim would destroy the informational integrity on which professional client relationships depend. The absence of actual harm to Firm X's client relationships, if any, is irrelevant to the deontological analysis: the duty was violated at the moment the misleading representation was made.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's voluntary pre-departure representation that he would not compete with Firm X created a binding moral duty — independent of any contractual non-compete agreement — that constrained his subsequent conduct toward Firm X's employees and clients. The moral force of this duty derives from the reliance interest it generated: Firm X's principals foreseeably relied on Engineer A's representation in their planning and in their decision not to seek contractual protections. A voluntary representation made to induce reliance generates a duty of fidelity that is morally binding even absent legal enforceability. From a Kantian perspective, Engineer A's subsequent conduct — recruiting Engineer C and soliciting Firm X's clients — cannot be universalized without destroying the institution of professional representations of intent, which depends on those representations being honored. The moral duty was not unlimited in duration or scope, but it clearly encompassed the conduct Engineer A engaged in within one month of departure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's strategy of recruiting Engineer C and then leveraging her anticipated departure to disparage Firm X's capacity produced net harm across all affected parties that outweighed any competitive benefit to Firm Y. Firm X suffered reputational harm and potential client loss based on misleading representations. Firm X's clients were deprived of accurate information and subjected to manipulated urgency in their service provider decisions, undermining their ability to make genuinely autonomous choices. Engineer C was placed in a professionally compromised position, potentially associated with a disparagement campaign she did not authorize. The engineering profession suffered erosion of the trust norms that make professional representations meaningful and that enable orderly competitive transitions. Against these harms, the competitive benefit to Firm Y — gaining clients through disparagement rather than merit — is not only modest in magnitude but is also the kind of benefit that consequentialist analysis in professional ethics contexts discounts heavily, because it is achieved through means that, if generalized, would produce systemic harm to professional trust far exceeding any individual competitive gain.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the professional character traits of integrity and collegiality when he used insider knowledge of Firm X's staffing structure — acquired during his employment — to engineer a self-fulfilling prediction of Firm X's incapacity and then exploit that prediction in client solicitations. A person of integrity does not make representations of intent that he does not honor, does not manufacture the conditions he then presents as independent facts, and does not use knowledge acquired in a relationship of trust to undermine the party who extended that trust. A collegial professional competes on the merits of his own firm's capabilities rather than on the manufactured weaknesses of his former employer. Engineer A's conduct reflects not merely a series of discrete rule violations but a pattern of character that is fundamentally incompatible with the professional virtues the engineering ethics framework is designed to cultivate and protect. The self-fulfilling disparagement strategy is particularly revealing of character because it required Engineer A to plan and execute a sequence of actions — departure, recruitment, client solicitation — each of which was individually calibrated to serve the overall strategy of undermining Firm X.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 305
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q305: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B's decision to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board reflects a mixture of genuine professional self-policing virtue and competitive self-interest that partially compromises the ethical quality of the act without eliminating it. Pure virtue in self-policing would involve reporting misconduct solely because it harms the profession and the public, with no personal benefit to the reporter. Engineer B's competitive interest in suppressing Engineer A's conduct means the act cannot be characterized as purely virtuous. However, virtue ethics does not require pure motives — it requires that the agent act in accordance with the virtues that a person of good character would display. A person of good professional character would report genuine misconduct even when they benefit from doing so, provided they do so accurately and in good faith. The ethical quality of Engineer B's act therefore depends heavily on how the report is made: if it is accurate, complete, and made in good faith, it reflects partial virtue; if it is exaggerated or strategically framed to maximize competitive damage, it reflects a failure of integrity that overwhelms the self-policing virtue.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer A had disclosed to Firm X before departing that he intended to establish a firm that would compete for the same clients and potentially recruit Firm X staff, his subsequent offer to Engineer C would have remained ethically permissible — and the Board's analysis of the non-compete misrepresentation would have changed significantly. The ethical permissibility of recruiting Engineer C does not depend on the departure representation; it rests on the at-will employment symmetry principle and the absence of a written non-compete agreement or specialized knowledge restriction. Those conditions would have been unchanged by honest disclosure. However, the honest disclosure would have eliminated the independent ethical violation arising from the misrepresentation of intent, and it would have altered the moral context of the subsequent client solicitations. The client solicitations would still have been ethically problematic if they included capacity disparagement, but the layered violation of misrepresentation-plus-exploitation would have been reduced to the single violation of improper competitive communication. Honest disclosure at departure would not have sanitized the disparagement, but it would have removed one of the two independent grounds for ethical criticism.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer C had ultimately declined Engineer A's offer and remained at Firm X, Engineer A's statements to Firm X's clients about Firm X being 'hard pressed' to perform would still constitute an ethical violation — but the nature and severity of that violation would differ from the scenario in which Engineer C actually departed. The ethical wrong in Engineer A's statements is not contingent on the predicted departure materializing; it is located in the act of making misleading representations to clients about a competitor's capacity based on a contingent future event that Engineer A himself was attempting to engineer. If Engineer C declined and remained, the statements would be revealed as both misleading and factually false, compounding the violation. The self-caused incapacity exploitation dynamic would be partially undermined — Engineer A would have attempted but failed to create the condition he was representing — but the misrepresentation violation would remain fully intact. The ethical wrong does not depend on the prediction coming true; it depends on the character of the representation at the moment it was made.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Firm X's clients had independently approached Engineer A and asked him to assess Firm X's capacity to complete ongoing projects — rather than Engineer A proactively soliciting them — the Board's ethical analysis of his capacity disparagement statements would likely have been somewhat more favorable, but would not have fully exonerated him. The client-impetus mitigating factor, recognized in BER precedent, reduces the ethical weight of competitive solicitation when the transition is client-initiated rather than engineer-initiated. However, even in a client-initiated inquiry, Engineer A would have retained the obligation to respond honestly and without misleading framing. He could not, even in response to a direct client question, represent a self-caused and contingent future departure as an independent present fact about Firm X's incapacity. The client-impetus factor mitigates the solicitation dimension of the violation but does not reach the misrepresentation dimension. Engineer A's statements would still have been ethically problematic for their misleading character, though the proactive solicitation aggravant would have been absent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_217
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 101
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 217
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A had recruited Engineer C without making any disparaging statements to Firm X's clients — relying solely on Firm Y's own merits to attract business — the Board's conclusion on Question 1 would not have been affected, and the ethical permissibility of the recruitment would have been significantly cleaner. The Board's affirmative conclusion on Question 1 rests on the at-will employment symmetry principle and the absence of a written non-compete agreement or specialized knowledge restriction applicable to Engineer C. Those foundations are independent of the disparagement conduct addressed in Question 2. However, the ethical cleanliness of the recruitment scenario without disparagement is not absolute: Engineer A's pre-departure misrepresentation about not competing would still have been violated by the recruitment itself, since recruiting a key Firm X employee is plainly competitive conduct. The absence of disparagement would have eliminated the most serious ethical violation — the capacity misrepresentation to clients — but would not have fully resolved the misrepresentation-of-intent violation. The recruitment, standing alone, would have been ethically permissible under at-will symmetry principles while remaining ethically complicated by the departure representation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 301
answers question4: 205
cited provision1: III.7.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between free and open competition — which unambiguously permits Engineer A to recruit Engineer C and solicit Firm X's clients — and the self-caused incapacity non-exploitation principle was resolved by the Board in favor of the latter, but only with respect to the disparagement conduct, not the recruitment itself. This resolution reveals a critical doctrinal boundary: competitive freedom extends to acts that weaken a former employer (recruiting its staff, soliciting its clients), but it does not extend to using the consequences of those very acts as evidentiary ammunition to disparage the former employer's capacity. The ethical wrong is not that Engineer A competed; it is that he manufactured the condition of Firm X's alleged incapacity through his own recruitment of Engineer C and then weaponized that self-caused condition as a factual predicate for client-facing disparagement. Free competition permits Engineer A to make Firm X weaker; it does not permit him to then point to that weakness — which he created — as proof that clients should abandon Firm X. The self-caused incapacity non-exploitation principle thus functions as a limiting condition on competitive freedom rather than a competing value of equal weight, and the Board's resolution implicitly treats it as lexically superior once the self-causation nexus is established.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 104
answers question4: 206
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The at-will employment symmetry principle — which grants Engineer C full freedom to accept Engineer A's offer and grants Engineer A full freedom to extend it — was preserved intact by the Board's conclusion on Question 1, but this preservation was implicitly conditioned on a separation between the recruitment act and the disparagement act. The Board's analysis treats these as analytically distinct events even though they are causally linked in Engineer A's competitive strategy. This separation is ethically significant: it means that the at-will employment symmetry principle does not become contaminated or retroactively invalidated by the subsequent misuse of the recruitment's consequences. Engineer C's freedom to depart and Engineer A's freedom to hire her remain ethically clean even though Engineer A later exploited her anticipated departure unethically. The case therefore teaches that the ethical quality of an act is assessed at the moment of the act and under the principles governing that act, not retrospectively recharacterized by the actor's subsequent misuse of the act's consequences. However, this separation also creates a residual tension with the client autonomy principle: clients who received Engineer A's disparaging representations were denied the ability to make genuinely autonomous service decisions because their information environment was corrupted by Engineer A's self-serving framing of Engineer C's departure — a framing that exploited the very at-will freedom the Board simultaneously protected.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 e
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 303
answers question3: 103
answers question4: 207
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.6.
cited provision3: III.1.e.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tripartite interest balancing principle — which requires fair consideration of Engineer A's competitive interests, Firm X's continuity interests, and clients' genuine service interests — was resolved in a way that exposes a deep structural asymmetry in how the Board weights these interests when misrepresentation is present. In the absence of misrepresentation, the tripartite balance would likely permit Engineer A to communicate accurate information about Firm X's staffing changes to clients, because clients have a genuine and legitimate interest in knowing whether their service provider retains the personnel capacity to fulfill contractual obligations. This is the principle tension identified in Q203: clients' real informational interests could, in principle, justify some form of candid competitive communication about Firm X's capacity. However, the Board's resolution forecloses this possibility entirely once the communication takes the form of predictive disparagement engineered by the speaker himself. The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique is treated as categorical in this context — it does not yield to the clients' informational interest because the information being conveyed is not neutral fact but a self-serving prediction whose evidentiary basis was manufactured by the speaker. This resolution teaches that the tripartite balance is not a simple utilitarian calculus; it is constrained by deontological side-constraints on honesty and non-manipulation that prevent the clients' informational interest from being invoked to justify misleading communications, even technically accurate ones.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A honor his pre-departure non-competition representation by refraining from recruiting Firm X staff and soliciting Firm X clients, or proceed with competitive expansion on the grounds that no legally enforceable non-compete agreement exists?
focus: Engineer A departed Firm X after explicitly representing he would start a one-person consulting firm and would not compete with Firm X. Within one month, he recruited Engineer C from Firm X and solicited Firm X's clients. The core question is whether Engineer A's voluntary pre-departure representation created a binding ethical obligation constraining his subsequent competitive conduct — specifically the recruitment of Firm X staff and direct solicitation of Firm X clients.
option1: Refrain from recruiting Firm X employees and directly soliciting Firm X clients for a meaningful period following departure, consistent with the one-person firm representation made to Firm X, competing only on the merits of Firm Y's independent capabilities.
option2: Proceed with recruiting Firm X staff and soliciting Firm X clients on the grounds that no legally enforceable non-compete covenant exists and the at-will employment symmetry principle fully protects competitive mobility, treating the departure statement as an informal expression of present intent rather than a binding commitment.
option3: Return to Firm X to disclose that business conditions have changed and that Firm Y will need to expand beyond a one-person operation and compete for clients, giving Firm X the opportunity to seek contractual protections or adjust its reliance on the original representation before Engineer A proceeds with competitive conduct.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A offer Engineer C a position at Firm Y as a legitimate exercise of competitive recruitment, or refrain from recruiting Firm X employees given his non-competition representation and the risk that the recruitment will be weaponized as the basis for client-facing disparagement of Firm X?
focus: Engineer A offered Engineer C a position at Firm Y. Engineer C is an at-will employee of Firm X with no written non-compete agreement and no specialized proprietary knowledge that would restrict her competitive mobility. The ethical question is whether Engineer A's offer to Engineer C was permissible given the at-will employment symmetry principle, and whether the subsequent use of Engineer C's anticipated departure as a basis for disparaging Firm X to clients transforms the recruitment from a permissible act into the first step of an impermissible integrated strategy.
option1: Offer Engineer C the position at Firm Y as a legitimate competitive recruitment, but strictly refrain from using her anticipated departure as a basis for any representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity, competing for clients solely on Firm Y's own merits.
option2: Offer Engineer C the position and proactively contact Firm X's clients to inform them of her anticipated departure, representing that Firm X will be hard pressed to perform and directing clients to engage Firm Y — treating the departure as a legitimate competitive differentiator in client solicitations.
option3: Solicit Firm X's clients for Firm Y first on the basis of Firm Y's own capabilities, and only thereafter recruit Engineer C, maintaining temporal and causal separation between the competitive solicitation and the staff recruitment to avoid the self-caused incapacity exploitation dynamic.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A communicate to Firm X's clients about Engineer C's anticipated departure and its implications for Firm X's capacity, or refrain from making any capacity-related representations about Firm X given that he engineered the departure he is citing and is the direct commercial beneficiary of client anxiety?
focus: Engineer A contacted Firm X's clients and represented that because Engineer C was leaving to join Firm Y, Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects, and that clients should hire Firm Y. The ethical question is whether these representations — which may have been technically accurate in a narrow sense — constitute an ethical violation given that Engineer A himself caused the staff departure he was citing, and that the statements were framed as affirmative solicitations rather than neutral disclosures.
option1: Make no representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity to perform, soliciting clients for Firm Y solely on the basis of Firm Y's own qualifications, experience, and capabilities without reference to Engineer C's departure or Firm X's alleged incapacity.
option2: Inform Firm X's clients of Engineer C's anticipated departure while fully disclosing that Engineer A recruited Engineer C and is therefore the cause of the staffing change, leaving clients to draw their own conclusions about Firm X's capacity without directing them to hire Firm Y.
option3: Proactively contact Firm X's clients to represent that Engineer C's departure will leave Firm X hard pressed to perform and that clients should engage Firm Y, treating the anticipated staffing change as a legitimate factual basis for competitive solicitation without disclosing Engineer A's causal role in creating that condition.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer B report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board while disclosing the competitive relationship, report without such disclosure, or refrain from reporting given the conflict of interest created by Engineer B's direct competitive stake in the outcome?
focus: Engineer B, a principal of Firm X and a direct commercial competitor of Engineer A, has learned of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients. Engineer B faces the question of whether to report Engineer A's conduct to the appropriate licensing authority, and if so, how to handle the competitive motivation that also drives the report. The engineering profession's self-policing obligation is genuine, but Engineer B's direct competitive interest in suppressing Engineer A's client solicitation creates a risk that the licensing board complaint becomes a strategic business weapon.
option1: File an accurate, factually grounded report of Engineer A's misconduct with the licensing board while proactively disclosing to the board that Engineer B is a direct commercial competitor of Engineer A and that Engineer A is actively soliciting Firm X's clients, enabling the board to weigh the report's context appropriately.
option2: File a report of Engineer A's misconduct with the licensing board presenting the violations on their professional merits without disclosing the competitive relationship, on the grounds that the validity of the underlying violations is independent of the reporter's motivations and that disclosure of competitive interest is not formally required.
option3: Refrain from filing the complaint directly given the conflict of interest, and instead bring the documented misconduct to the attention of a neutral professional body or uninvolved licensed engineer who can evaluate the violations and file a report without the competitive motivation that compromises Engineer B's position.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer C, upon learning that Engineer A has used her anticipated departure to make misleading representations to Firm X's clients without her authorization, take corrective action to clarify her actual status and intentions, or treat the matter as Engineer A's independent conduct for which she bears no responsibility?
focus: Engineer C accepted Engineer A's offer to join Firm Y. Engineer A subsequently used Engineer C's anticipated departure as the basis for representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform — representations that may have been made without Engineer C's knowledge or consent and that may have mischaracterized her intentions or timeline. The question is whether Engineer C bears an independent ethical obligation to correct the record with Firm X or its clients if she becomes aware that her name and anticipated departure are being used to mislead third parties.
option1: Upon learning that Engineer A has used her anticipated departure to make representations to Firm X's clients that mischaracterize her intentions or timeline, proactively clarify her actual status and the terms of any commitment she has made to Firm Y, enabling Firm X to correct the record with its clients.
option2: Refrain from any corrective action on the grounds that Engineer A's representations to Firm X's clients are his independent conduct for which Engineer C bears no professional responsibility, and that Engineer C's only obligations are to honor confidentiality of Firm X's proprietary information and to perform her new role at Firm Y competently.
option3: Notify Engineer A that she does not authorize the use of her anticipated departure as a basis for representations to Firm X's clients, without directly contacting Firm X or its clients, placing the corrective obligation on Engineer A while preserving Engineer C's professional relationship with her new employer.
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A, having legitimately recruited Engineer C from Firm X, treat Engineer C's anticipated departure as a permissible factual basis for communicating to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity, or recognize that his causal role in creating that condition forecloses its use as a competitive argument regardless of its narrow factual accuracy?
focus: The case presents a structural tension between the principle of free and open competition — which unambiguously permits Engineer A to recruit Engineer C and solicit Firm X's clients — and the self-caused incapacity non-exploitation principle, which prohibits using the consequences of one's own competitive acts as evidentiary ammunition to disparage a former employer's capacity. The question is where the ethical boundary lies between permissible competitive conduct (weakening a rival by recruiting its staff) and impermissible exploitation (using the self-caused weakness as a factual predicate for client-facing disparagement).
option1: Solicit Firm X's clients for Firm Y exclusively on the basis of Firm Y's own qualifications, personnel, and track record, refraining from any reference to Engineer C's departure or Firm X's resulting capacity as a basis for the solicitation, recognizing that the self-caused nature of the departure forecloses its use as competitive evidence.
option2: Represent to Firm X's clients that Engineer C's departure is a factually accurate and material development affecting Firm X's capacity, treating the at-will recruitment as a legitimate competitive act whose consequences Engineer A is entitled to communicate to clients as accurate market information regardless of his causal role in creating those consequences.
option3: Inform Firm X's clients of Engineer C's anticipated departure while fully disclosing that Engineer A recruited Engineer C and is therefore the proximate cause of the staffing change, presenting the information neutrally without directing clients to hire Firm Y, and allowing clients to make their own capacity assessments with full information about Engineer A's role.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Departure Non-Competition Representation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: former employee of Firm X, prospective sole proprietor of Firm Y
foreseen unintended effects: Statement could be relied upon by Firm X in how it managed Engineer A's departure (e.g., sharing of client information, transition arrangements)
foreseen unintended effects: Statement could later constrain Engineer A's freedom to compete if taken as a binding commitment
fulfills obligation text: Courtesy and professional conduct during employment transition
fulfills obligation text: Transparency with employer at time of departure
guided by principle text: Good faith in employment relationships
guided by principle text: Honesty in professional communications
guided by principle text: Integrity of professional representations
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Facilitate a smooth departure from Firm X, likely to secure goodwill, favorable treatment during exit, and avoid conflict or restrictive measures from Firm X principals
raises obligation text: Honesty and integrity: if Engineer A already intended to compete or recruit, the statement was misleading (NSPE Code: engineers shall be honest and not misrepresent facts)
raises obligation text: Obligation not to deceive employer regarding material future intentions
requires capability text: Professional judgment about ethical obligations of honesty
requires capability text: Understanding of implications of voluntary representations in professional contexts
temporal marker: At the time of departure from Firm X (pre-departure)
temporal sequence: 2
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A voluntarily represented to Firm X at the time of his departure that he intended to start a one-person consulting firm (Firm Y) and would not be in a position to compete with Firm X. This statement was made without any legal or ethical obligation to do so, but once made, created a reasonable expectation of truthfulness.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Departure Non-Competition Representation Action 1 + Recruiting Firm X Employee Action 2 + Disparaging Firm X to Clients Action 3 → Firm X Reputation Materially Harmed Event 6 - Aggregate Causal Chain
type: CausalChain
causal language: The cumulative sequence: misrepresentation at departure, targeted employee recruitment, and false client communications, together produced the downstream consequence of concrete reputational and business harm to Firm X
cause: Departure Non-Competition Representation (Action 1) + Recruiting Firm X Employee (Action 2) + Disparaging Firm X to Clients (Action 3)
counterfactual: If any one of the three actions had been prevented or countered in time, the full magnitude of reputational harm to Firm X would likely have been significantly reduced or avoided entirely
effect: Firm X Reputation Materially Harmed (Event 6). Aggregate Causal Chain
necessary factors: False client communications to convert Firm X's client base using insider knowledge (Action 3)
necessary factors: Firm X's lack of timely awareness and response at each stage
necessary factors: Initial misrepresentation enabling unimpeded competitive setup (Action 1)
necessary factors: Recruitment of insider employee to weaken Firm X's operational capacity (Action 2)
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary, direct); Engineer C (secondary, shared for recruitment phase)
sufficient factors: The three-part coordinated campaign, misrepresented departure + insider recruitment + false client solicitation, collectively constituted a sufficient causal set for material reputational harm even if any single action alone might not have been sufficient
within agent control: true

Departure Non-Competition Representation Action 1 + Recruiting Firm X Employee Action 2 + Disparaging Firm X to Clients Action 3 → Firm X Reputation Materially Harmed Event 6 — Aggregate Causal Chain
type: NamedIndividual
label: Departure Non-Competition Representation (Action 1) + Recruiting Firm X Employee (Action 2) + Disparaging Firm X to Clients (Action 3) → Firm X Reputation Materially Harmed (Event 6) — Aggregate Causal Chain
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Departure Non-Competition Representation (Action 1) → Engineer A Departs Firm X (Event 1) → Firm Y Formally Established (Event 2)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A voluntarily represented to Firm X at the time of his departure that he intended to start [a sole proprietorship], marking the beginning of his transition
cause: Departure Non-Competition Representation (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without the departure representation, Firm X may have sought contractual protections or injunctive relief earlier, potentially preventing or delaying Firm Y's establishment in its competitive form
effect: Engineer A Departs Firm X (Event 1) → Firm Y Formally Established (Event 2)
necessary factors: Engineer A's voluntary decision to depart Firm X
necessary factors: Firm X's reliance on that representation in allowing departure
necessary factors: Representation made to Firm X regarding future intentions
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Voluntary departure + affirmative non-competition representation + Firm X's acceptance of those terms together constituted a sufficient set to establish the foundational conditions for Firm Y
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Disparaging Firm X to Clients
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: sole proprietor of Firm Y, former employee of Firm X
foreseen unintended effects: Breach of trust with clients who may have received misleading information about Firm X's capabilities
foreseen unintended effects: Material harm to Firm X's professional reputation and client relationships
foreseen unintended effects: Potential harm to Engineer C, whose name was used as a basis for the disparaging claim without her apparent consent to that use
foreseen unintended effects: Potential loss of revenue and business goodwill for Firm X
foreseen unintended effects: Reputational risk to Engineer A himself if conduct was perceived as unethical
guided by principle text: Fair competition in the engineering marketplace
guided by principle text: Honesty and truthfulness in all professional communications
guided by principle text: Integrity in competitive business practices
guided by principle text: Non-maleficence toward fellow engineers and their professional interests
guided by principle text: Respect for client relationships and client autonomy based on accurate information
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure Firm X's existing clients for Firm Y by undermining client confidence in Firm X's ability to deliver, leveraging Engineer C's impending departure as a competitive tool
raises obligation text: None identified, the Discussion finds no ethical justification for this conduct
requires capability text: Business development and client communication skills
requires capability text: Ethical judgment regarding permissible bounds of competitive solicitation
requires capability text: Understanding of NSPE Code provisions on criticism of fellow engineers and protection of professional reputations
temporal marker: Shortly after contacting Engineer C; approximately one to several months post-departure from Firm X
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Good faith obligation arising from prior voluntary non-competition representation at departure
violates obligation text: Honesty and integrity: statements about Firm X's incapacity were speculative, misleading, or false
violates obligation text: NSPE Code: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
violates obligation text: NSPE Code: Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers
violates obligation text: Obligation not to use a former employer's client relationships as a vehicle for competitive harm through misrepresentation
within competence: true
comment: Shortly after recruiting Engineer C, Engineer A contacted Firm X's clients and made representations that because Engineer C was leaving Firm X for Firm Y, Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects, and solicited those clients to hire Firm Y instead. This constituted both false or misleading criticism of Firm X and direct solicitation based on that criticism.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Disparaging Firm X to Clients (Action 3) → Firm X Clients Receive False Information (Event 5) → Firm X Reputation Materially Harmed (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A contacted Firm X's clients and made representations [that were false and misleading], implying that Firm X will [cease operations or lose capacity], causing clients to receive false information and Firm X to suffer concrete reputational harm
cause: Disparaging Firm X to Clients (Action 3)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's false client communications, clients would have had no basis to doubt Firm X's continuity or competence; reputational harm of this nature would not have occurred absent the deliberate misinformation campaign
effect: Firm X Clients Receive False Information (Event 5) → Firm X Reputation Materially Harmed (Event 6)
necessary factors: Clients' receipt of and reliance on the false communications
necessary factors: Engineer A's access to Firm X's client list (likely obtained during employment)
necessary factors: Engineer A's deliberate decision to contact those clients with false or misleading information
necessary factors: The credibility Engineer A held with those clients as a former Firm X engineer
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: False communications to known clients + Engineer A's insider credibility + absence of timely corrective communication from Firm X together formed a sufficient set to cause material reputational harm
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer-Solicitation-and-Competition-Ethics-Standard
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Solicitation and Competitive Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
usedby: Engineer A (as obligation bearer)
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's conduct in soliciting Firm X's clients by making disparaging statements about Firm X's ability to perform, and in recruiting Firm X's employee (Engineer C) to join Firm Y — both actions raising questions about ethical competitive conduct.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.614798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Artful Misrepresentation Client Solicitation Recognition
type: ArtfulMisrepresentationinNegotiationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that his statements to Firm X's clients — while grounded in the factual premise of Engineer C's anticipated departure — were artfully constructed to create a false and misleading impression of Firm X's incapacity, constituting an ethical violation.
casecontext: Engineer A's representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X being 'hard pressed' were technically grounded in an anticipated departure but created a misleading impression of incapacity.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made artfully misleading statements to Firm X's clients by using a factual premise (Engineer C's departure) to create a false impression of Firm X's inability to perform.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.623836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility — Hiring Engineer C
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryCompetitiveMobilityPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER found that Engineer A's act of offering a position to Engineer C was not in and of itself unethical, distinguishing the permissible hiring from the impermissible subsequent disparagement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's act of offering employment to Engineer C was itself ethically permissible under the at-will employment symmetry principle, given the absence of a written non-compete agreement and specialized knowledge restriction — the ethical violation arose from subsequent misrepresentations, not from the hiring itself.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: the Board believes that Engineer A's actions in offering a position to Engineer C was not in and of itself unethical
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A extended an employment offer to Engineer C
textreferences: The BER cannot find any specific language in the NSPE Code of Ethics that would prevent one engineer from offering an employment position to another engineer
textreferences: the Board believes that Engineer A's actions in offering a position to Engineer C was not in and of itself unethical
textreferences: the Board believes that Engineer A's conduct in hiring Engineer C is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of Firm X and not a partner or principal of the firm
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.628537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Business Negotiation Artfully Misleading Client Representations — Engineer C Departure Framing
type: BusinessNegotiationArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used the technically true fact of Engineer C's anticipated departure — which Engineer A caused — to create a misleading impression of Firm X's organic incapacity
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Business Negotiation Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from framing Engineer C's departure — a departure Engineer A himself caused — as an independent factual basis for client concern about Firm X's performance capacity, because this framing, while grounded in a factual premise (Engineer C's departure), was structured to create a materially false impression that Firm X's incapacity was an organic development rather than an engineer-engineered outcome.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-Deception Provisions; NSPE Code Section II.3 on truthful statements in professional dealings
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
temporalscope: During the period of client solicitation following departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.609244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Business Negotiation Honesty Non-Exemption Awareness
type: BusinessNegotiationHonestyStandardNon-ExemptionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Negotiation Honesty Standard Non-Exemption Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that professional honesty obligations applied with full force to his client solicitation communications and his representations to Firm X about his future competitive intentions, and that the competitive commercial context did not exempt him from these obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A made misrepresentations in both his departure representation to Firm X and his subsequent client solicitation communications.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A treated client solicitation as a context exempt from professional honesty obligations, making misrepresentations about both his own competitive intentions and Firm X's capabilities.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.624073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Case 86-5 Firm Principal Losing Staff to Client-Initiated Departure
type: FirmPrincipalLosingStafftoClient-InitiatedDeparture
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role': 'Principal of large engineering firm', 'staff_solicited': 'Engineers X, Y, Z', 'soliciting_client': 'City'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A (in Case 86-5) was the principal of a large engineering firm whose staff engineers (X, Y, Z) were directly solicited by the city client to work independently, representing a loss of business goodwill and client relationship.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client_relationship_at_risk', 'target': 'City Municipal Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineers X Y Z'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Firm Principal Losing Staff to Client-Initiated Departure
sourcetext: Engineer A, a principal in a large engineering firm in the city decided to have his firm submit a proposal
textreferences: Engineer A, a principal in a large engineering firm in the city decided to have his firm submit a proposal
textreferences: the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.619121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Client Impetus Mitigation Factor Absence — Firm X Client Solicitation
type: ClientImpetusMitigationFactorAbsenceAggravationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A self-initiated contact with Firm X's clients and made disparaging representations about Firm X's capacity — no client had approached Engineer A to encourage independent practice, removing the mitigating factor present in BER Case 97-2
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Impetus Mitigation Factor Absence Aggravation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's self-initiated solicitation of Firm X's clients lacked any client impetus that would mitigate the ethical concern — unlike BER Case 97-2 where the client approached the engineer, no client approached Engineer A, making his solicitation conduct subject to heightened ethical scrutiny.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 97-2; NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6, III.7
sourcetext: unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts
temporalscope: During Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients following departure
textreferences: unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.628703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Non-Harm Competitive Context Failure
type: CollegialNon-HarminCompetitiveContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to fulfill collegial obligations toward his former professional peers at Firm X by refraining from making representations to clients that would harm Firm X's professional reputation and competitive position, particularly given that Engineer A stood to benefit competitively from the harm caused.
casecontext: Engineer A's competitive solicitation of Firm X's clients with disparaging representations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform, directly harming Firm X's professional reputation and competitive position while Engineer A stood to gain those clients for Firm Y.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward his former professional peers at Firm X, to refrain from making representations to clients that would harm Firm X's professional reputation.
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward his former professional peers at Firm X, to refrain from making representations to clients that would harm Firm X's professional reputation.
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627287
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Non-Harm Competitive Context Obligation
type: CollegialNon-HarminCompetitiveContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward his former professional peers at Firm X by refraining from making representations to clients that would harm Firm X's professional reputation and competitive position, particularly given that Engineer A stood to benefit competitively from that harm.
casecontext: Engineer A's disparaging client solicitation communications directly harmed his former colleagues at Firm X while benefiting his competing firm.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made disparaging representations to Firm X's clients that directly harmed Firm X's professional reputation and competitive position while Engineer A stood to benefit from that harm.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.624245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Obligation Non-Disparagement — Firm X Former Colleagues
type: CovertCompetitorDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made disparaging capacity representations to Firm X's clients while simultaneously soliciting those clients for Firm Y
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from making disparaging representations about Firm X's professional capacity to Firm X's clients in a manner structured to damage Firm X's professional reputation and prospects, particularly where Engineer A stood to benefit competitively from the damage caused.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case No. 77-11
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
temporalscope: During the period of client solicitation following departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.626600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury — Firm X Capacity Statements
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made statements to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully — statements designed to injure Firm X's professional reputation and prospects in order to gain competitive advantage for Firm Y
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's statements to Firm X's clients implying Firm X would be unable to fulfill its professional obligations constituted an attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of Firm X's engineers, in violation of NSPE Code Section III.7.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7
sourcetext: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that... engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
temporalscope: During Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients following departure
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that... engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.611280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury — Firm X Client Solicitation Disparagement
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A solicited Firm X's clients by disparaging Firm X's capacity to perform its existing projects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from making representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully, as such representations constitute an attempt to injure Firm X's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through false or misleading statements made in a competitive context where Engineer A stood to benefit directly from the reputational damage caused.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case No. 77-11
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
temporalscope: During the period of client solicitation following departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.609430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty
type: DepartingEngineerClientSolicitationHonestRepresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honest Representation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to conduct his solicitation of Firm X's clients honestly — accurately representing Firm X's capabilities and refraining from false or misleading statements about Firm X's capacity to perform — a capability he failed to exercise.
casecontext: Engineer A's post-departure client solicitation involved dishonest representations about Firm X's capacity to perform rather than honest promotion of Firm Y's merits.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A solicited Firm X's clients using misrepresentations about Firm X's ability to perform, rather than competing on the honest merits of Firm Y's capabilities.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.624747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Failure
type: DepartingEngineerClientSolicitationHonestRepresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honest Representation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to conduct solicitation of Firm X's clients with full honesty, instead making misrepresentations about Firm X's capacity to perform that were grounded in a departure he himself caused.
casecontext: Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients after departing to form Firm Y
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A solicited Firm X's clients with misleading representations about Firm X's future capacity, violating the honesty standard applicable to competitive solicitation.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.612766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Departs Firm X
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Honesty_And_Integrity_Obligation
activates constraint: Loyalty_To_Former_Employer_Constraint
activates constraint: Non_Competition_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from Firm X employee to prospective sole proprietor of Firm Y; non-competition representation becomes binding moral and potentially legal commitment
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Honor_Non_Compete_Representation
creates obligation: Operate_Firm_Y_Within_Represented_Scope
creates obligation: Refrain_From_Disparaging_Former_Employer
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Initial event; prior to all other actions
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer A's employment at Firm X ends, marking the beginning of his transition to sole proprietorship. This departure activates the non-competition representation he made and sets the stage for subsequent interactions.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Departure Representation Scope Accuracy — One-Person Firm Misrepresentation
type: DepartureRepresentationScopeAccuracyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A represented he would start a one-person firm, then within one month recruited Firm X's employee Engineer C to join Firm Y, contradicting the one-person firm representation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Departure Representation Scope Accuracy Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to ensure that his representation of starting a 'one-person firm' accurately reflected his genuine intentions at departure; his subsequent recruitment of Engineer C within one month indicates the representation did not accurately reflect his actual plans, constituting a violation of the departure representation accuracy constraint.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-Deception Provisions; NSPE Code Section III.2 on truthful statements
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
temporalscope: At the time of departure from Firm X and throughout the period of reliance by Firm X on the representation
textreferences: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.607933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Engineer Statement Professional Bond Integrity — Departure Representation
type: EngineerStatementProfessionalBondIntegrityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER found that Engineer A's statement, while not ethically required, must be assumed to have been intended as a truthful and honest statement of fact — and that his subsequent actions were in direct conflict with it
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Statement Professional Bond Integrity Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's departure statement that he would start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X constituted a professional bond — a binding representation of his integrity — that he was required to honor, and his subsequent competitive actions violated the professional bond integrity standard.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on honesty and truthfulness
sourcetext: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer A's departure statement through his subsequent competitive conduct
textreferences: Engineer A's statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A's departure from Firm X
textreferences: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact
textreferences: it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.611495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Explicit Non-Competition Representation Binding Constraint
type: ExplicitNon-CompetitionRepresentationBindingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A departed Firm X representing he would start a one-person firm and not compete, then immediately recruited Firm X's employee and solicited Firm X's clients
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Explicit Non-Competition Representation Binding Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's explicit representation to Firm X that he would start a one-person firm and would not compete with Firm X ethically bound him to refrain from direct competition with Firm X, regardless of the absence of a formal written non-compete agreement.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-Deception and Truthfulness Provisions; BER accumulated doctrine on post-employment competition
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
temporalscope: From the date of departure from Firm X onward, for a period consistent with the reasonable reliance period created by the representation
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.625838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Explicit Non-Competition Representation Binding — Departure Statement
type: ExplicitNon-CompetitionRepresentationBindingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made a clear departure representation that he would not compete with Firm X, which the BER found could have significantly affected how Firm X treated him during departure — his subsequent actions were in direct conflict with this statement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Explicit Non-Competition Representation Binding Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's explicit statement at departure that he would start a one-person firm and would not compete with Firm X constituted a binding professional representation that he was ethically obligated to honor — his subsequent competitive actions directly contradicted this representation.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on truthfulness and non-deception; NSPE BER Case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer A's departure statement through his subsequent competitive conduct
textreferences: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A's statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A's departure from Firm X
textreferences: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact
textreferences: it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Former Employer Capacity Predictive Disparagement — Firm X Clients
type: FormerEmployerCapacityPredictiveDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made statements to Firm X's clients implying Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations due to Engineer C's pending departure — a departure Engineer A himself caused by recruiting Engineer C
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Former Employer Capacity Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from making predictive representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects due to Engineer C's pending departure — such predictive capacity disparagement violated NSPE Code Section III.7.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; NSPE BER Case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure
temporalscope: During Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients following departure
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that (a) engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, and that (b) engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Former Employer Capacity Predictive Disparagement — Hard Pressed Representation
type: FormerEmployerCapacityPredictiveDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A told Firm X's clients that because Engineer C was leaving, Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully and that clients should hire Firm Y instead
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Former Employer Capacity Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from making predictive representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects, as such forward-looking capacity disparagement constitutes an attempt to injure Firm X's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through misleading predictive statements.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7 — Prohibition on maliciously or falsely injuring professional reputation; NSPE Code Section II.3 — Truthfulness; BER Case No. 77-11
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
temporalscope: During the period of client solicitation following departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.609071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Improper Competitive Method — Client Solicitation Through Capacity Disparagement
type: ImproperCompetitiveMethodProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A sought to obtain Firm X's clients by making disparaging capacity representations rather than competing on merit
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from attempting to obtain professional engagements from Firm X's clients through the improper method of disparaging Firm X's capacity to perform, rather than competing on the demonstrated merits of Firm Y's capabilities.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 — Improper competitive methods; BER Case No. 77-11
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
temporalscope: During the period of client solicitation following departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.625996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Self-Monitoring
type: Non-CompetitionRepresentationFidelitySelf-MonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Self-Monitoring Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to monitor his own conduct against his explicit representation to Firm X that he would start a one-person firm and not compete — a capability he failed to exercise when he recruited Engineer C and solicited Firm X's clients.
casecontext: Engineer A departed Firm X after representing he would not compete, then immediately began competing by recruiting staff and soliciting clients.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A acted contrary to his non-competition representation by recruiting Firm X's employee and soliciting Firm X's clients within one month of departure.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
textreferences: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.623126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Self-Monitoring Failure
type: Non-CompetitionRepresentationFidelitySelf-MonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Self-Monitoring Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to continuously monitor his own conduct against his explicit representation that he would operate only as a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X, failing to recognize that recruiting Engineer C and soliciting Firm X's clients contradicted that representation.
casecontext: Engineer A's post-departure competitive conduct against Firm X
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made an explicit non-competition representation and then recruited Firm X's employee Engineer C and solicited Firm X's clients with disparaging statements about Firm X's capacity.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
textreferences: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
textreferences: it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Predictive Competitor Incapacity Disparagement
type: PredictiveCompetitorIncapacityDisparagementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Predictive Competitor Incapacity Disparagement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his predictive representation to Firm X's clients — that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully because of Engineer C's pending departure — constituted impermissible disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation through speculative future-state predictions.
casecontext: Engineer A's competitive solicitation of Firm X's clients
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made predictive representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X's future inability to perform, based on the anticipated departure of Engineer C.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that (a) engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, and that (b) engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.612120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Predictive Competitor Incapacity Disparagement Avoidance
type: PredictiveCompetitorIncapacityDisparagementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Predictive Competitor Incapacity Disparagement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that predicting Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform on its projects — based on Engineer C's anticipated departure — constituted impermissible predictive disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation.
casecontext: Engineer A contacted Firm X's clients with predictive claims about Firm X's inability to perform, using anticipated staff departure as the basis.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made predictive disparaging representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.623632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation
type: Self-CausedStaffDepartureCompetitiveExploitationProhibitionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation Prohibition Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that using Engineer C's anticipated departure — a departure Engineer A himself caused by recruiting her — as a basis for representing to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform constituted impermissible exploitation of a competitive disadvantage he himself created.
casecontext: Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients using Engineer C's anticipated departure as leverage
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A recruited Engineer C from Firm X and then used her anticipated departure as a basis for disparaging Firm X's capacity to perform to Firm X's clients.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: The combination of the departure of Engineer C from Firm X and the hiring of Engineer C by Firm Y, along with the earlier expressed assurances by Engineer A about his intentions in establishing a new firm, give the Board great pause and concern in reviewing the motives and intentions of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.611916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation — Engineer C Recruitment
type: Self-CausedStaffDepartureCompetitiveExploitationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The combination of Engineer A recruiting Engineer C from Firm X and then using Engineer C's pending departure to tell Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform compounded the original recruitment with a further act of bad faith
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from exploiting Engineer C's anticipated departure from Firm X — a departure Engineer A himself caused by recruiting Engineer C — as a basis for making disparaging representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity to perform.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6, III.7; NSPE BER Case analysis
sourcetext: The combination of the departure of Engineer C from Firm X and the hiring of Engineer C by Firm Y, along with the earlier expressed assurances by Engineer A about his intentions in establishing a new firm, give the Board great pause and concern in reviewing the motives and intentions of Engineer A
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A recruited Engineer C through his subsequent client solicitation using Engineer C's departure as a disparagement basis
textreferences: Considering all factors and earlier BER cases on this issue, the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct
textreferences: The combination of the departure of Engineer C from Firm X and the hiring of Engineer C by Firm Y, along with the earlier expressed assurances by Engineer A about his intentions in establishing a new firm, give the Board great pause and concern in reviewing the motives and intentions of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.611057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation — Engineer C Recruitment to Client Disparagement
type: Self-CausedStaffDepartureCompetitiveExploitationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A recruited Engineer C from Firm X to join Firm Y, then used Engineer C's anticipated departure as the basis for telling Firm X's clients that Firm X would be unable to perform its projects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from recruiting Engineer C away from Firm X and then using Engineer C's anticipated departure as the factual predicate for disparaging representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully — because Engineer A was the proximate cause of the staffing disruption he was exploiting as a competitive weapon.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7 — Prohibition on injuring professional reputation; NSPE Code Section III.6 — Improper competitive methods; BER Case No. 77-11
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: From the date Engineer A recruited Engineer C through the period of client solicitation
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.608893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Exploitation Recognition
type: Self-CausedStaffDepartureCompetitiveExploitationProhibitionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation Prohibition Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that recruiting Engineer C from Firm X and then using Engineer C's anticipated departure as a basis for soliciting Firm X's clients constituted impermissible exploitation of a competitive disadvantage he himself caused.
casecontext: Engineer A offered Engineer C a position at Firm Y, then used Engineer C's anticipated departure as a competitive solicitation tool against Firm X's clients.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A recruited Engineer C and then immediately used Engineer C's anticipated departure to solicit Firm X's clients by claiming Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.623359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Technically True Misleading Disparagement
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his statement about Firm X being 'hard pressed' to perform — while potentially grounded in the factual premise of Engineer C's departure — was nonetheless materially misleading because it omitted the critical context that Engineer A himself caused that departure by recruiting Engineer C.
casecontext: Engineer A's competitive solicitation communications to Firm X's clients
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made statements to Firm X's clients that were artfully misleading — grounded in a factual premise (Engineer C's departure) while omitting the critical context that Engineer A caused that departure.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: Considering all factors and earlier BER cases on this issue, the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct.
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.612568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Third-Party Reputation Non-Impairment Client Solicitation
type: Third-PartyReputationNon-ImpairmentinBusinessNegotiationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Third-Party Reputation Non-Impairment in Business Negotiation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that his representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity to perform implicated Firm X's and its engineers' professional reputation, and to refrain from such reputation-impairing misrepresentations out of collegial obligation.
casecontext: Engineer A's client solicitation communications directly impaired the professional reputation of Firm X and its remaining engineers.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made representations to Firm X's clients that impaired Firm X's professional reputation by predicting its inability to perform on projects.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.624572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Three-Party Departure Interest Balancing Constraint
type: Three-PartyEngineerDepartureInterestBalancingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A departed Firm X, established Firm Y, recruited Engineer C from Firm X, and solicited Firm X's clients using disparaging misrepresentations about Firm X's capacity — failing to conduct competition in a manner fair and equitable to all parties
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to balance the interests of Firm X's clients (right to choose their firm), his own individual initiative rights, and Firm X's goodwill interests when departing and competing — his misrepresentations to clients about Firm X's capacity violated this balancing obligation.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, 97-2; NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6, III.7
sourcetext: the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer A's departure from Firm X through his competitive solicitation of Firm X's clients
textreferences: Considering all factors and earlier BER cases on this issue, the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct
textreferences: the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.628187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Voluntary Representation Truthfulness Self-Binding Failure
type: VoluntaryRepresentationTruthfulnessSelf-BindingRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Voluntary Representation Truthfulness Self-Binding Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his voluntary departure statement — that he would start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X — created an ethical self-binding obligation of truthfulness, and that his subsequent actions in recruiting Engineer C and soliciting Firm X's clients directly contradicted that voluntary representation.
casecontext: Engineer A's departure from Firm X and establishment of competing Firm Y
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer A made a voluntary non-competition representation at departure and then acted in direct contradiction to it by recruiting Firm X's employee and soliciting Firm X's clients with disparaging representations.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact.
textreferences: Engineer A's statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A's departure from Firm X.
textreferences: However, it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement.
textreferences: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A contacting Engineer C with a job offer before Engineer A contacting Firm X's clients with misrepresentations
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects.
from entity text: Engineer A contacting Engineer C with a job offer
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A contacting Firm X's clients with misrepresentations
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A contacting Firm X s clients with misrep
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A contacting Firm X's clients with misrepresentations before Engineer C's actual departure from Firm X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
from entity text: Engineer A contacting Firm X's clients with misrepresentations
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer C's actual departure from Firm X
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer C s actual departure from Firm X
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A's departure from Firm X before Engineer A contacting Engineer C with a job offer
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
from entity text: Engineer A's departure from Firm X
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A contacting Engineer C with a job offer
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A contacting Engineer C with a job offer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A's departure from Firm X before Engineer A contacting Firm X's clients with misrepresentations
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C... Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients.
from entity text: Engineer A's departure from Firm X
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A contacting Firm X's clients with misrepresentations
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A contacting Firm X s clients with misrep
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A's departure from Firm X before Engineer A's representation about starting a one-person firm and not competing
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
from entity text: Engineer A's departure from Firm X
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's representation about starting a one-person firm and not competing
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s representation about starting a one-p
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A's representation about not competing before Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients for Firm Y
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X. However, it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement.
from entity text: Engineer A's representation about not competing
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients for Firm Y
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s solicitation of Firm X s clients for
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A's representation about not competing equals Engineer A's departure from Firm X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: equals
evidence: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
from entity text: Engineer A's representation about not competing
owl time property: time:intervalEquals
to entity text: Engineer A's departure from Firm X
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
interval equals: Engineer A s departure from Firm X
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Interest Non-Subordination Reporting Duty
type: CompetitiveInterestNon-SubordinationofReportingDutySelf-MonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty Self-Monitoring Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to ensure that his direct competitive interest in the outcome — as a firm principal losing clients and staff to Engineer A — did not suppress his legitimate professional duty to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board.
casecontext: Engineer B's competitive relationship with Engineer A created a risk that competitive discomfort about appearing self-interested might suppress a legitimate reporting obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B faced the risk that the appearance of competitive self-interest might cause him to withhold a legitimate misconduct report or that others might discount the report due to his competitive position.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.625225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Motivation Disclosure in Peer Misconduct Reporting — Engineer A Report
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingCompetitiveInterestNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B holds a direct competitive interest in the outcome of any complaint against Engineer A, as Engineer A is actively soliciting Firm X's clients
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, as a direct competitor of Engineer A whose clients are being solicited, was constrained to disclose to the licensing board any competitive relationship with Engineer A when filing a misconduct report, and was prohibited from allowing competitive self-interest to either drive the report as harassment or suppress the report of genuine violations.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Honest professional conduct; Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint doctrine
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: At the time of filing any misconduct report with the licensing board
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.626296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Motivation Disclosure — Licensing Board Report
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingCompetitiveInterestNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B holds a direct competitive interest in Engineer A's misconduct — Engineer A is soliciting Engineer B's firm's clients — requiring transparency about this motivation when reporting to the licensing board
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, as a direct competitor of Engineer A whose clients are being solicited, was required to disclose to the licensing board any competitive interest in the outcome of the complaint and to ensure the reporting decision was grounded in genuine public interest rather than competitive self-interest.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint doctrine
sourcetext: Considering all factors and earlier BER cases on this issue, the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct
temporalscope: At the time of and following Engineer B's decision to report Engineer A's misconduct
textreferences: Considering all factors and earlier BER cases on this issue, the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.611718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Application
type: CompetitivePeerMisconductReportingMotivationTransparencySelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B, as a direct competitor of Engineer A whose clients were being solicited, needed to exercise the capability to recognize the appearance of competitive motivation in reporting Engineer A's misconduct, to transparently disclose that competitive relationship, and to ensure the report was grounded in professional duty rather than competitive self-interest.
casecontext: Engineer B's decision whether and how to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's obligation to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board while acknowledging and disclosing the competitive relationship that creates an appearance of self-interested motivation.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B, as a direct competitor of Engineer A whose clients are being solicited, was obligated to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board while transparently disclosing the competitive relationship.
textreferences: Engineer B, as a direct competitor of Engineer A whose clients are being solicited, was obligated to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board while transparently disclosing the competitive relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.612946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Reporting Motivation Purity Self-Assessment Competitive Context
type: ReportingMotivationPuritySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Reporting Motivation Purity Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to examine and confirm that his decision to report Engineer A's misconduct was grounded in professional duty and public interest — rather than competitive self-interest in recovering lost clients or preventing further staff departures — recognizing that his competitive relationship with Engineer A complicated the purity of his reporting motivation.
casecontext: Unlike the disinterested reporter scenario, Engineer B had a direct competitive stake in the outcome of any misconduct report against Engineer A, requiring heightened self-examination of reporting motivation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's position as a direct competitive victim of Engineer A's misconduct required careful self-examination to ensure reporting was duty-based rather than competitively motivated.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.625380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Self-Policing Peer Misconduct Reporting — Engineer A Violations
type: Self-PolicingProfessionPeerMisconductReportingFoundationalDutyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B is a principal in Firm X who has learned of Engineer A's false representations and disparaging client solicitations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients — was constrained by the foundational duty of the self-policing profession to report Engineer A's conduct to the appropriate licensing authority, and could not treat this reporting as optional merely because Engineer B held a competitive interest in the outcome.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Self-policing profession provisions; NSPE Code Section III.2.b on reporting violations
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer B's learning of Engineer A's misconduct
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.626148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C Accepts Employment Offer
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: engineer employed by Firm X, prospective employee of Firm Y
foreseen unintended effects: Disruption to Firm X's operations and project delivery capacity
foreseen unintended effects: Her departure would be used by Engineer A as a basis for disparaging Firm X to clients, a use she may not have anticipated or consented to
foreseen unintended effects: Potential reputational implications if her association with Firm Y's competitive conduct became known
fulfills obligation text: Exercise of legitimate right to seek and accept new employment in the absence of contractual restrictions
fulfills obligation text: Individual professional autonomy and career development
fulfills obligation text: Respect for at-will employment principles applicable to both employer and employee
guided by principle text: At-will employment principles protecting employee freedom of movement
guided by principle text: Individual engineer's right to professional mobility and career advancement
guided by principle text: Obligation to avoid carrying specialized confidential knowledge to a competitor without consent (not triggered here per Discussion)
has agent: Engineer C
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Pursue a new professional opportunity at Firm Y, exercising her right to change employment in the absence of any written restriction
raises obligation text: None identified by the BER with respect to Engineer C's decision to accept the offer in isolation
raises obligation text: Potential obligation to ensure she did not carry specialized project knowledge to a competing firm, though the Discussion finds no evidence this applied in her case
requires capability text: Awareness of any confidentiality or specialized knowledge obligations owed to Firm X
requires capability text: Professional judgment about career decisions and employment transitions
requires capability text: Understanding of ethical obligations when transitioning between competing firms
temporal marker: Shortly after Engineer A's contact, approximately one month or more after Engineer A's departure from Firm X
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Engineer C, an employee of Firm X, considered and apparently accepted Engineer A's offer of a position at Firm Y, deciding to leave her current employment with Firm X. This decision to change employers is treated in the Discussion as an exercise of her individual professional mobility rights.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C At-Will Departure Non-Restriction — No Specialized Knowledge No Written Non-Compete
type: Non-AbsoluteFormerClientLoyaltyPerpetuityProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C held no written non-compete agreement with Firm X and had not acquired specialized knowledge that would restrict competitive employment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.8
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Perpetuity Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C's departure from Firm X to join Firm Y was not ethically prohibited in the absence of a written non-compete agreement and in the absence of specialized knowledge acquired at Firm X that would create a residual constraint on competitive employment — establishing that Engineer C's at-will mobility was ethically permissible under the accumulated BER doctrine on engineer departure and competition.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:56.472602+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: BER Case No. 77-11; BER Case No. 79-10; BER Case No. 97-2; Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer C's acceptance of Engineer A's offer
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.626438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C At-Will Employment Reciprocity Recognition
type: At-WillEmploymentReciprocityEthicalBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: At-Will Employment Reciprocity Ethical Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C needed to exercise the capability to recognize that, in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, she had the freedom to accept Engineer A's employment offer and move to Firm Y, while also recognizing that this freedom did not suspend her confidentiality obligations regarding Firm X's proprietary information.
casecontext: Engineer C's consideration of Engineer A's employment offer
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's evaluation of whether accepting Engineer A's offer was ethically permissible under the at-will employment reciprocity principle, subject to confidentiality constraints.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: most engineers understand that in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another.
textreferences: Also no formal written agreement between Engineer C and Firm X would address the issue of whether and under what terms Engineer C could compete with Firm X after departing from Firm X.
textreferences: most engineers understand that in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.613397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility Permissibility
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryCompetitiveMobilityPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C had no written non-compete agreement with Firm X and had not acquired specialized knowledge that would restrict her ability to work for Firm Y and compete against Firm X
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was ethically permitted to depart Firm X and join Firm Y in the absence of a written non-compete agreement and without having acquired specialized knowledge that would restrict competition — the at-will employment symmetry principle established this permissibility.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer C's departure from Firm X and acceptance of employment with Firm Y
textreferences: This approach is in essence the 'flip side' of the standard employment relationship where an employer, with few exceptions, may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer 'at will.'
textreferences: it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X
textreferences: no formal written agreement between Engineer C and Firm X would address the issue of whether and under what terms Engineer C could compete with Firm X after departing from Firm X
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.628378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C Permissible Competitive Employment Confidentiality Navigation
type: PermissibleCompetitiveEmploymentAcceptanceWithConfidentialityConstraintNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Permissible Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to navigate accepting a position at Firm Y while refraining from disclosing or using any confidential or proprietary information from Firm X in her new role, recognizing the ethical constraints that attach to competitive employment transitions.
casecontext: Engineer C was offered a position at competing Firm Y by Engineer A, requiring her to navigate the ethical constraints on competitive employment transitions including confidentiality obligations to Firm X.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's consideration of Engineer A's offer required navigation of the ethical constraints on using Firm X's confidential information in a competing firm.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.625523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C Receives Job Offer
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_A_Fair_Dealing_Constraint
activates constraint: Engineer_C_Confidentiality_Obligation
activates constraint: Engineer_C_Duty_Of_Loyalty_To_Current_Employer
causes state change: Engineer C is now aware of an alternative employment opportunity; Firm X's staffing stability is potentially at risk; Engineer A has initiated a sequence that will lead to client disparagement
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Use_Offer_As_Pretext_For_Disparagement
creates obligation: Engineer_C_Must_Consider_Offer_Honestly
creates obligation: Engineer_C_Must_Notify_Firm_X_If_Departure_Imminent
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Approximately one month after Engineer A's departure; shortly before client solicitation
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer C, a current Firm X employee, becomes the recipient of an employment offer from Engineer A at Firm Y, creating a decision point for her and a potential staffing consequence for Firm X. This outcome results directly from Engineer A's recruiting action.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment
type: DepartingEmployeeSpecializedKnowledgeCompetitiveRestrictionSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Employee Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C needed to exercise the capability to assess whether she had acquired specialized knowledge during her employment at Firm X that would restrict her ability to work for Firm Y and compete against Firm X, correctly determining that no such specialized project knowledge existed that would require Firm X's or clients' consent.
casecontext: Engineer C's consideration of Engineer A's employment offer from Firm Y
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's assessment of whether her employment at Firm X involved specialized knowledge triggering competitive restrictions, consistent with the BER 77-11 framework.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Unlike BER Case No. 77-11, it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X.
textreferences: It should also be noted that there does not appear to be anything under the facts to suggest that Engineer C is engaged in a specific project for which she has gained particular and specialized knowledge that would require Engineer C to gain the consent of Firm X or appropriate clients to perform work for Firm Y.
textreferences: Unlike BER Case No. 77-11, it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.613184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C's Departure Becomes Known
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_A_Honesty_In_Business_Dealings_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Exploiting_Confidential_Information
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_False_Statements_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer C's departure is now a fact that exists in the world and can be referenced; this fact becomes the basis for Engineer A's subsequent false and misleading statements to clients
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Misrepresent_Firm_X_Capabilities
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Use_Departure_As_False_Pretext
creates obligation: Engineer_C_Must_Provide_Appropriate_Notice_To_Firm_X
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Shortly after Engineer C accepts the employment offer; prior to client solicitation
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer C's impending departure from Firm X becomes a known or anticipated fact, which Engineer A subsequently weaponizes in false representations to Firm X's clients. This outcome shifts from a private employment decision to a publicly exploitable fact.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard - Accumulated BER Doctrine
type: EngineerDepartureandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE BER Accumulated Doctrine on Engineer Departure and Competition
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: In reviewing each case, the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients.
textreferences: In reviewing each case, the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in synthesizing BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, and 97-2 to evaluate Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Applied as the overarching normative framework for balancing individual engineer initiative, employer goodwill, client rights, and specialized knowledge restrictions when engineers leave firms to compete
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.617446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineers X Y Z Client-Solicited Departing Staff Engineers
type: Client-SolicitedDepartingStaffEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'former_employer': "Engineer A's firm", 'soliciting_party': 'City (municipal client)', 'disclosure_made': True, 'specialized_knowledge_constraint': 'Applicable to projects for which specialized knowledge was gained'}
caseinvolvement: Engineers X, Y, and Z developed a proposal for Engineer A's firm, were then directly approached by the city to consult independently, disclosed this to Engineer A, resigned, and entered negotiations with the city. The Board found this ethical under a strict reading of the Code, subject to specialized knowledge constraints.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Engineer A Firm Principal'}
relationships: {'type': 'independent_contract_with', 'target': 'City Municipal Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'City Municipal Client'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Client-Solicited Departing Staff Engineer
sourcetext: a city official approached Engineers X, Y, and Z and asked if they would agree to a contract as consultants, independent of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city
textreferences: a city official approached Engineers X, Y, and Z and asked if they would agree to a contract as consultants, independent of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: it would be ethical for Engineers X, Y, and Z to agree to a contract for consulting services independent of Engineer A's firm
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.618703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineers X Y Z Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Recognition
type: DepartingEmployeeSpecializedKnowledgeCompetitiveRestrictionSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Employee Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers X, Y, and Z needed to exercise the capability to assess whether their specialized knowledge gained in developing the proposal for Engineer A's firm would restrict their ability to contract independently with the city, and to correctly navigate the ethical framework governing that transition.
casecontext: BER Case 86-5: Engineers X, Y, and Z's decision to accept independent consulting contract with the city
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city — demonstrating awareness of the need to navigate the specialized knowledge and competitive restriction framework.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:44.116022+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineers X, Y, and Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city.
textreferences: Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city.
textreferences: The Board concluded that, according to a strict interpretation of the Code, it would be ethical for Engineers X, Y, and Z to agree to a contract for consulting services independent of Engineer A's firm.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.614225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm X Clients Engineering Services Client Targeted by Competitor Disparagement
type: EngineeringServicesClientTargetedbyCompetitorDisparagement
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'current_service_provider': 'Firm X', 'solicited_by': 'Engineer A / Firm Y'}
caseinvolvement: Existing clients of Firm X who are contacted by Engineer A with misleading representations about Firm X's ability to perform, and are solicited to transfer their business to Firm Y.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'current_engineer', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_client_of', 'target': 'Firm Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Engineering Services Client Targeted by Competitor Disparagement
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.618493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm X Clients Receive False Information
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Honesty_And_Integrity_Obligation
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Disparaging_Competitors_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_False_Statements_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Confidence_In_Engineering_Profession_Constraint
causes state change: Firm X's client relationships are now destabilized by false information; clients are making or will make business decisions based on misrepresentations; Firm X's reputation and business interests are materially harmed
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Correct_False_Statements
creates obligation: Engineering_Profession_Must_Enforce_Ethical_Standards
creates obligation: Firm_X_May_Seek_Remedy_For_Reputational_Harm
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Shortly after Engineer C's impending departure becomes known; concurrent with client solicitation action
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: Firm X's clients receive false and misleading communications from Engineer A implying that Firm X will struggle to perform due to Engineer C's departure, causing them to question Firm X's reliability. This outcome is the direct result of Engineer A's disparaging solicitation.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.628013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm X Incumbent Firm Competitor Misconduct Reporting Assessment
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingThresholdAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm X, through Engineer B, required the capability to assess whether Engineer A's conduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to clients — met the threshold for formal misconduct reporting to the licensing board.
casecontext: Firm X discovered Engineer A's misconduct involving false representations and competitor disparagement, requiring threshold assessment for formal reporting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Firm X's discovery of Engineer A's multiple ethical violations required assessment of whether and how to report the misconduct to the appropriate licensing authority.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:18:38.473797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm X
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.625666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm X Reputation Materially Harmed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineering_Profession_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Disparaging_Competitors_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_False_Statements_Constraint
causes state change: Firm X's competitive position is weakened; client relationships are destabilized; the harm is ongoing and self-reinforcing as false narratives spread; Engineer A has achieved an unethical competitive advantage
concept category: Event
creates obligation: BER_And_Professional_Bodies_Must_Address_Violation
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Correct_Misrepresentations
creates obligation: Firm_X_Has_Right_To_Seek_Professional_And_Legal_Remedy
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following client receipt of false information; ongoing
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: high
comment: As a downstream consequence of clients receiving false information, Firm X suffers concrete reputational and potential business harm, including possible client defection and loss of future work. This outcome represents the cumulative effect of Engineer A's misrepresentations.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.606749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm Y Formally Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Honest_Business_Practice_Constraint
activates constraint: Non_Competition_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Soliciting_Former_Employer_Clients_Constraint
causes state change: Firm Y is now an active business entity; Engineer A is now a competitor in the marketplace, creating latent tension with his non-competition representation
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Maintain_Honest_Business_Dealings
creates obligation: Operate_Within_Represented_Scope
creates obligation: Refrain_From_Competing_With_Firm_X_As_Represented
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Approximately one month after Engineer A's departure from Firm X
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: low
comment: Firm Y comes into existence as a one-person engineering firm under Engineer A's sole proprietorship, approximately one month after his departure from Firm X. This outcome materializes the business context in which subsequent recruiting and client solicitation occur.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

III.1.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

III.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Misrepresentation-in-Business-Dealings-Standard
type: MisrepresentationinBusinessDealingsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review; NSPE Code of Ethics
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Prohibiting Misrepresentation in Business Dealings
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y
usedby: Engineer A (as obligation bearer); Engineer B (as basis for assessing Engineer A's conduct)
usedincontext: Directly applicable to Engineer A's false or misleading statements to Firm X's clients that Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully — a representation designed to divert business by mischaracterizing the former employer's capabilities.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.614602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:18.093685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
usedby: Engineer A (as obligation bearer); Engineer B (as basis for evaluating Engineer A's conduct)
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding honest representation, fair competition, and professional conduct toward Firm X and its clients after departing the firm.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.614407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon on Truthful Criticism and Reputation Injury
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:11:47.259654+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that (a) engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, and that (b) engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that (a) engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, and that (b) engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's statements to Firm X's clients
usedincontext: Cited as prohibiting engineers from attempting to obtain employment or advancement by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, and from maliciously or falsely injuring the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.616741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.007985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A's departure representation — that he would operate a one-person consulting firm and would not compete with Firm X — create a binding ethical obligation that constrained his subsequent competitive conduct, and if so, what is the scope and duration of that obligation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Is Engineer B's motivation for reporting Engineer A's misconduct to a licensing board ethically relevant, and does a competitive interest in the outcome of that report diminish or nullify the self-policing obligation Engineer B otherwise bears?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Even if Engineer A's statements about Firm X being 'hard pressed' were technically accurate at the moment of utterance, does the fact that Engineer A himself caused the condition he is exploiting — by recruiting Engineer C — transform an otherwise permissible competitive statement into an independent ethical violation distinct from simple misrepresentation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does Engineer C bear any independent ethical obligation to disclose to Firm X that Engineer A's representations to clients about her departure were made without her knowledge or consent, particularly if those representations materially mischaracterized her intentions or timeline?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to make representations to Firm X’s clients that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that the clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.009907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of free and open competition — which permits Engineer A to recruit Engineer C and solicit Firm X's clients — conflict with the self-caused incapacity non-exploitation principle when Engineer A uses the very staff departure he engineered as the evidentiary basis for his capacity disparagement of Firm X?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the at-will employment symmetry principle — which grants Engineer C full freedom to accept Engineer A's offer — conflict with the client autonomy principle when Engineer A uses Engineer C's anticipated departure as a lever to manipulate client decision-making before Engineer C has actually left or formally committed to leaving?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the tripartite interest balancing principle — which requires fair consideration of Engineer A's competitive interests, Firm X's continuity interests, and clients' service interests — conflict with the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique when the clients' genuine interest in accurate information about Firm X's capacity could, in principle, justify some form of candid competitive communication?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the engineering self-policing obligation invoked by Engineer B conflict with the honesty in professional representations principle when Engineer B's competitive interest in the outcome of a licensing board complaint against Engineer A creates a risk that the reporting act itself becomes a strategic business weapon rather than a good-faith professional duty?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.010974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a categorical duty of honesty by making representations about Firm X's capacity that he knew — or should have known — were misleading, regardless of whether those representations ultimately harmed Firm X's client relationships?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A's voluntary pre-departure representation that he would not compete with Firm X create a binding moral duty — independent of any contractual non-compete agreement — that constrained his subsequent conduct toward Firm X's employees and clients?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's strategy of recruiting Engineer C and then leveraging her anticipated departure to disparage Firm X's capacity produce net harm across all affected parties — Firm X, Firm X's clients, Engineer C, and the engineering profession — that outweighed any competitive benefit to Firm Y?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional character traits of integrity and collegiality when he used insider knowledge of Firm X's staffing structure — acquired during his employment — to engineer a self-fulfilling prediction of Firm X's incapacity and then exploit that prediction in client solicitations?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer B's decision to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing board reflect genuine professional self-policing virtue, or is it compromised by Engineer B's direct competitive interest in suppressing Engineer A's conduct — and does the mixture of motives diminish the ethical quality of the act?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had disclosed to Firm X before departing that he intended to establish a firm that would compete for the same clients and potentially recruit Firm X staff, would his subsequent offer to Engineer C have remained ethically permissible — and would the Board's analysis of the non-compete misrepresentation have changed?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer C had ultimately declined Engineer A's offer and remained at Firm X, would Engineer A's statements to Firm X's clients about Firm X being 'hard pressed' to perform still constitute an ethical violation — or does the ethical wrong depend on whether the predicted staff departure actually materialized?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Firm X's clients had independently approached Engineer A and asked him to assess Firm X's capacity to complete ongoing projects — rather than Engineer A proactively soliciting them — would the Board's ethical analysis of his capacity disparagement statements have differed, given the precedent that client-initiated transitions carry mitigating weight?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had recruited Engineer C without making any disparaging statements to Firm X's clients — relying solely on Firm Y's own merits to attract business — would the Board's conclusion on Question 1 have been affected, and would the ethical permissibility of the recruitment have been cleaner given the absence of the self-caused incapacity exploitation dynamic?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Recruiting Firm X Employee
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: sole proprietor of Firm Y, former employee of Firm X
foreseen unintended effects: Direct contradiction of Engineer A's prior non-competition representation
foreseen unintended effects: Disruption to Firm X's operational capacity and ongoing project delivery
foreseen unintended effects: Possible harm to Engineer C if her departure created professional or contractual complications
foreseen unintended effects: Potential reputational harm to Firm X if Engineer C's departure was used to solicit clients
fulfills obligation text: At-will employment principles permitting engineers to change positions freely
fulfills obligation text: Exercise of legitimate right to offer employment to another engineer in the absence of a written restriction
fulfills obligation text: Respect for Engineer C's autonomy and right to seek new employment
guided by principle text: Fair dealing with former employers
guided by principle text: Freedom of professional mobility for individual engineers
guided by principle text: Honesty and integrity in professional representations
guided by principle text: Right of engineers to build competitive enterprises
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Expand Firm Y's capabilities by recruiting a qualified engineer from Firm X, thereby strengthening Firm Y's capacity to compete for engineering projects
requires capability text: Awareness of NSPE Code provisions on engineer mobility and employer obligations
requires capability text: Business development and talent recruitment judgment
requires capability text: Understanding of ethical obligations in competitive employment practices
temporal marker: Approximately one month after departing Firm X
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation text: Honesty and integrity, the recruitment directly contradicted Engineer A's prior representation that Firm Y would be a one-person firm not competing with Firm X
violates obligation text: Implicit good-faith obligation arising from voluntary non-competition statement made at departure
within competence: true
comment: Approximately one month after departing Firm X, Engineer A contacted Engineer C, an employee of Firm X, and offered her a position at Firm Y. This action directly contradicted his earlier representation that Firm Y would be a one-person firm not competing with Firm X.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Recruiting Firm X Employee (Action 2) → Engineer C Receives Job Offer (Event 3) → Engineer C Accepts Employment Offer (Action 4) → Engineer C's Departure Becomes Known (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Approximately one month after departing Firm X, Engineer A contacted Engineer C, an employee of Firm [X], which led to Engineer C becoming the recipient of an employment offer and apparently accepting it
cause: Recruiting Firm X Employee (Action 2)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's direct solicitation, Engineer C would likely have remained at Firm X; the departure and its downstream consequences, including Engineer A's use of Engineer C's departure as leverage with clients, would not have occurred
effect: Engineer C Receives Job Offer (Event 3) → Engineer C Accepts Employment Offer (Action 4) → Engineer C's Departure Becomes Known (Event 4)
necessary factors: Engineer A's active decision to contact Engineer C specifically
necessary factors: Engineer A's establishment of Firm Y as a vehicle capable of offering employment
necessary factors: Engineer C's status as a current Firm X employee with knowledge of clients and operations
necessary factors: Engineer C's willingness to consider and accept the offer
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); Engineer C (shared, secondary)
sufficient factors: Engineer A's targeted solicitation of a known Firm X insider + Engineer C's acceptance + the timing (one month post-departure) together formed a sufficient set to cause Engineer C's departure and the downstream operational disruption to Firm X
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.629560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.013080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.007826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.007881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.007917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.007951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.008982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.014576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.011848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:59:05.012490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.091748+00:00
value: Competitive solicitation of clients is permissible; making false or misleading capability predictions about a competitor to that competitor's clients is not, regardless of competitive context

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092851+00:00
value: Even if Engineer C's departure was a true anticipated fact, using it to imply Firm X's general incapacity without full context violates the prohibition on technically-true-but-misleading statements

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093253+00:00
value: No competing principle mitigated Engineer A's conduct; the combination of the false representation, the self-caused nature of the alleged incapacity, and the prior non-competition representation compounded the ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.091922+00:00
value: The prohibition on reputation injury applies even in competitive contexts; free competition does not authorize false or misleading disparagement of a competitor's capability to that competitor's existing clients

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093203+00:00
value: The business-profession duality is resolved by permitting competition while prohibiting dishonest competitive conduct; the ethical constraints on competition are the price of professional status

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092982+00:00
value: The prohibition on reputation injury applies even in competitive contexts; free competition does not authorize false or misleading disparagement of a competitor's capability to that competitor's existing clients

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093906+00:00
value: The prohibition on reputation injury applies even in competitive contexts; free competition does not authorize false or misleading disparagement of a competitor's capability to that competitor's existing clients

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093680+00:00
value: No competing principle mitigated Engineer A's conduct; the combination of the false representation, the self-caused nature of the alleged incapacity, and the prior non-competition representation compounded the ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.091690+00:00
value: The right to recruit staff and the right to compete do not extend to using the consequences of one's own competitive conduct as a misleading basis for disparaging a competitor's capability to that competitor's clients

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092306+00:00
value: Competitive solicitation of clients is permissible; making false or misleading capability predictions about a competitor to that competitor's clients is not, regardless of competitive context

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.79
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093577+00:00
value: Engineer A's status as a non-principal employee (rather than partner or principal) of Firm X was a mitigating factor in assessing the ethical permissibility of his departure and hiring of Engineer C — but this mitigation did not extend to his subsequent misrepresentations to Firm X's clients.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092036+00:00
value: Even if Engineer C's departure was a true anticipated fact, using it to imply Firm X's general incapacity without full context violates the prohibition on technically-true-but-misleading statements

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093782+00:00
value: Competitive solicitation of clients is permissible; making false or misleading capability predictions about a competitor to that competitor's clients is not, regardless of competitive context

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093630+00:00
value: While engineers have a general right to compete freely, that right is constrained by prior explicit representations of non-competition; the ethical violation lies not in the competition itself but in the breach of the stated representation that induced Firm X's reliance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093040+00:00
value: Honesty in professional representations applies to representations about one's own future competitive conduct, not only to representations about qualifications; the rapid departure from the stated intent suggests the representation was not made in good faith

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.091632+00:00
value: No competing principle mitigated Engineer A's conduct; the combination of the false representation, the self-caused nature of the alleged incapacity, and the prior non-competition representation compounded the ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.091557+00:00
value: While engineers have a general right to compete freely, that right is constrained by prior explicit representations of non-competition; the ethical violation lies not in the competition itself but in the breach of the stated representation that induced Firm X's reliance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093149+00:00
value: The voluntary representation of non-competition, once made, constrained Engineer A's subsequent conduct beyond what the general mobility right would otherwise permit; the ethical obligation arose from the representation itself, not from any legal constraint

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092200+00:00
value: The voluntary representation of non-competition, once made, constrained Engineer A's subsequent conduct beyond what the general mobility right would otherwise permit; the ethical obligation arose from the representation itself, not from any legal constraint

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092255+00:00
value: While engineers have a general right to compete freely, that right is constrained by prior explicit representations of non-competition; the ethical violation lies not in the competition itself but in the breach of the stated representation that induced Firm X's reliance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.091981+00:00
value: The honesty obligation attached to the voluntary representation overrides the general competitive freedom Engineer A would otherwise have had; having made the representation, Engineer A was bound by it as a matter of professional honesty

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093732+00:00
value: The right to recruit staff and the right to compete do not extend to using the consequences of one's own competitive conduct as a misleading basis for disparaging a competitor's capability to that competitor's clients

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092909+00:00
value: The right to recruit staff and the right to compete do not extend to using the consequences of one's own competitive conduct as a misleading basis for disparaging a competitor's capability to that competitor's clients

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093523+00:00
value: The Board resolved the tension by disaggregating Engineer A's conduct into separate acts, applying the tripartite framework to each, and finding that the employment offer passed ethical scrutiny while the client disparagement failed it

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092093+00:00
value: The self-caused incapacity exploitation compounded the other violations; the Board cited 'the combination of the departure of Engineer C from Firm X and the hiring of Engineer C by Firm Y, along with the earlier expressed assurances' as giving 'great pause and concern'

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093833+00:00
value: The self-policing obligation applies even when the reporting engineer has a competitive interest; the obligation is grounded in professional duty to the profession's integrity, not in the absence of self-interest

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093095+00:00
value: The self-policing obligation applies even when the reporting engineer has a competitive interest; the obligation is grounded in professional duty to the profession's integrity, not in the absence of self-interest

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.091829+00:00
value: The self-policing obligation applies even when the reporting engineer has a competitive interest; the obligation is grounded in professional duty to the profession's integrity, not in the absence of self-interest

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.092146+00:00
value: The self-policing obligation applies even when the reporting engineer has a competitive interest; the obligation is grounded in professional duty to the profession's integrity, not in the absence of self-interest

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093345+00:00
value: Engineer C's employment freedom is not constrained by Firm X's interest in retaining her; the ethical violations in this case are Engineer A's, not Engineer C's, provided Engineer C does not misuse confidential Firm X information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093472+00:00
value: Absence of specialized project-specific knowledge meant the default mobility right governed; no consent from Firm X or its clients was required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:22:20.093417+00:00
value: No specialized knowledge constraint or written agreement was found, so the at-will symmetry principle governed and the employment offer was held permissible

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's statement at departure that he would start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X was treated by the Board as a professional representation that Engineer A intended to be truthful; the subsequent competitive conduct viol

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A explicitly represented to Firm X that he would start a one-person firm and would not compete with Firm X, then within one month began recruiting Firm X's staff and soliciting Firm X's clients for his new competing firm Firm Y

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A contacted Firm X's existing clients and made representations designed to injure Firm X's professional prospects by suggesting Firm X would be unable to perform its projects successfully, thereby attempting to redirect those clien

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A first recruited Engineer C away from Firm X, then used Engineer C's anticipated departure — a departure Engineer A himself caused — as the factual predicate for telling Firm X's clients that Firm X would be unable to perform, wit

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: While Engineer A has a general right to compete freely in the engineering market — including by starting a new firm and seeking clients — that right operates within ethical boundaries that prohibit false representations, reputation injury,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board acknowledged that establishing an independent engineering business is a legitimate and encouraged professional aspiration, but that the business pursuit must be conducted within professional ethical constraints — Engineer A's depa

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A made representations to Firm X's clients stating or implying that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects because Engineer C was leaving — misrepresenting Firm X's capability to induce client defect

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients — has an obligation as a licensed professional engineer to report Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: While Engineer A has a general right to compete freely in the engineering market — including by starting a new firm and seeking clients — that right operates within ethical boundaries that prohibit false representations, reputation injury,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as a licensed professional engineer employed by Firm X, has a general right to accept employment with a competing firm (Firm Y) without ethical violation, provided she does not disclose or use confidential information from Firm

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board found that Engineer A's offer of employment to Engineer C was not unethical because, absent a written agreement or specialized knowledge constraint, Engineer C had the same freedom to move to a competing firm as Firm X would have

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board evaluated Engineer A's conduct by balancing: (1) Firm X's clients' interest in retaining their chosen engineering firm; (2) Engineer A's and Engineer C's individual interests in career mobility and establishing independent practic

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguished the current case from BER Case No. 97-2 (where client-initiated encouragement mitigated ethical concerns) by finding no client impetus in Engineer A's solicitation — Engineer A manufactured client concerns about Firm

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A made a representation to Firm X that he would not be competing with Firm X, which was either false at the time of making or became false almost immediately upon departure, as he began direct competitive conduct within one month

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A explicitly represented at departure from Firm X that he was starting a one-person firm and would not be in competition with Firm X; this representation created an ethical obligation of fidelity to the stated intent; Engineer A's

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's statement at departure that he would start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X was treated by the Board as a professional representation that Engineer A intended to be truthful; the subsequent competitive conduct viol

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board cited the NSPE Code provision prohibiting engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers as directly applicable to Engineer A's state

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A made representations to Firm X's clients stating or implying that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects because Engineer C was leaving — misrepresenting Firm X's capability to induce client defect

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recruited Engineer C away from Firm X and then used Engineer C's anticipated departure as the basis for telling Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform — exploiting a condition of incapacity that Engineer

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's representation that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform because Engineer C was leaving may have been technically grounded in a true fact (Engineer C's anticipated departure) but was crafted to create a false overall impre

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A made a representation to Firm X that he would not be competing with Firm X, which was either false at the time of making or became false almost immediately upon departure, as he began direct competitive conduct within one month

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients — has an obligation as a licensed professional engineer to report Engineer

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as a licensed professional engineer employed by Firm X, has a general right to accept employment with a competing firm (Firm Y) without ethical violation, provided she does not disclose or use confidential information from Firm

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board cited the NSPE Code provision prohibiting engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers as directly applicable to Engineer A's state

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients — has an obligation as a licensed professional engineer to report Engineer

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to honor his explicit representation to Firm X that he would start a one-person firm and would not compete with Firm X, and to refrain from immediately engaging in competitive solicitation of Firm X's clients and st

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making predictive representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects, as such representations were designed to injure Firm X's professiona

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using Engineer C's anticipated departure from Firm X — a departure Engineer A himself caused by recruiting Engineer C — as a basis for making disparaging representations to Firm X's clients about Fir

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward his former professional peers at Firm X, to refrain from making representations to clients that were designed to injure Firm X's professional standing and undermine its client r

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making statements to Firm X's clients that, while potentially grounded in a factual premise (Engineer C's anticipated departure), were structured to create a false or exaggerated impression of Firm X

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to conduct any solicitation of Firm X's clients honestly and without misrepresentation of Firm X's capabilities, refraining from using insider knowledge of Engineer C's departure as a basis for misleading representa

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients — was obligated to report Engineer A's conduct to the appropriate licensing

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as a direct competitor of Engineer A whose clients are being solicited, was obligated to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing authority while being transparent about the competitive relationship, ensuring the report i

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, upon accepting or considering the offer from Engineer A's Firm Y, was obligated to refrain from disclosing or using any confidential or proprietary information belonging to Firm X in the course of her transition to or employment

Engineer A Non-Principal Employee Departure Competitive Conduct Proportionality
type: Non-PrincipalEmployeeDepartureCompetitiveConductProportionalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER specifically noted Engineer A's non-principal status as a factor supporting the permissibility of hiring Engineer C, while still finding his overall conduct fell below ethical standards due to the misrepresentations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Principal Employee Departure Competitive Conduct Proportionality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's status as a non-principal employee (rather than partner or principal) of Firm X was a mitigating factor in assessing the ethical permissibility of his departure and hiring of Engineer C — but this mitigation did not extend to his subsequent misrepresentations to Firm X's clients.
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:26:26.971404+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER accumulated departure-competition doctrine
sourcetext: the Board believes that Engineer A's conduct in hiring Engineer C is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of Firm X and not a partner or principal of the firm
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's departure from Firm X and establishment of Firm Y
textreferences: the Board believes that Engineer A's conduct in hiring Engineer C is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of Firm X and not a partner or principal of the firm
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.628844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm X Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
type: IncumbentConsultingEngineerUnderContract
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Tripartite Interest Balancing Applied to Engineer A Departure Scenario
attributes: {'firm_type': 'Small private practice engineering firm', 'status': 'Incumbent provider under active client relationships'}
caseinvolvement: Firm X is the incumbent engineering service provider to its clients, currently under active service relationships, whose capability and continuity are being misrepresented by Engineer A to divert clients to Firm Y.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Firm X Clients'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_disparagement_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
sourcetext: Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.606924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm X Incumbent Engineering Firm
type: IncumbentConsultingEngineerUnderContract
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Autonomy in Service Provider Selection Distinguished from Engineer-Manipulated Transition
attributes: {'firm_type': 'Engineering consulting firm', 'situation': 'Staff departure and client disparagement by former employee'}
caseinvolvement: Firm X is the incumbent engineering firm from which Engineer A and Engineer C departed, and whose clients were targeted by Engineer A's disparaging statements. The firm's business goodwill and ability to perform its contractual obligations are at the center of the ethical dispute.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:17.847777+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer C'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Firm X Clients'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
sourcetext: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X
textreferences: Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.619544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Specialized Knowledge Constraint Applied to Engineer C — No Violation Found
type: SpecializedKnowledgeConstraintonPost-DepartureCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's recruitment of Engineer C
appliedto: Engineer C's departure from Firm X to join Firm Y
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied the specialized knowledge doctrine from BER Case No. 77-11 to Engineer C's situation and found no violation because Engineer C had not gained particular and specialized knowledge on any specific project at Firm X that would require consent before working for Firm Y
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The specialized knowledge constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific; general professional experience and competence developed during employment does not trigger the consent requirement — only knowledge that is particular to specific projects and would give the departing engineer an unfair advantage on substantially similar work
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
sourcetext: Unlike BER Case No. 77-11, it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X.
tensionresolution: Absence of specialized project-specific knowledge meant the default mobility right governed; no consent from Firm X or its clients was required
textreferences: Also, no formal written agreement between Engineer C and Firm X would address the issue of whether and under what terms Engineer C could compete with Firm X after departing from Firm X.
textreferences: Unlike BER Case No. 77-11, it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X.
textreferences: there does not appear to be anything under the facts to suggest that Engineer C is engaged in a specific project for which she has gained particular and specialized knowledge that would require Engineer C to gain the consent of Firm X or appropriate clients to perform work for Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.609619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Client Autonomy in Service Provider Selection Distinguished from Engineer-Manipulated Transition
type: ClientAutonomyinEngineeringServiceProviderSelection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Comparison with BER Case No. 97-2
appliedto: Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients
balancingwith: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
balancingwith: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
balancingwith: Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board distinguished the current case from BER Case No. 97-2 (where client-initiated encouragement mitigated ethical concerns) by finding no client impetus in Engineer A's solicitation — Engineer A manufactured client concerns about Firm X's capacity rather than responding to genuine client-initiated interest in transition, thereby converting the client autonomy principle from a mitigating factor into an aggravating one
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client autonomy in service provider selection is a legitimate value that can mitigate ethical concerns when clients genuinely exercise their choice; but when an engineer manufactures the conditions that induce client concern and then presents himself as the solution, the client autonomy principle is being exploited rather than respected
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
sourcetext: unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
tensionresolution: The absence of genuine client impetus meant the client autonomy principle provided no mitigation; Engineer A's conduct was found to fall below ethical standards
textreferences: No one can deny that a client has a right to retain the engineering firm of its choice.
textreferences: What must be addressed, however, is a method to effect that right in a manner that is both fair and equitable to all of the concerned parties.
textreferences: unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.627140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation — Firm X
type: ContinuingPost-TerminationLoyaltyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure from Firm X onward; duration indeterminate
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm X
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X
stateclass: Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's residual ethical obligations to Firm X following departure
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — continuing obligations persist
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X
triggeringevent: Termination of Engineer A's employment at Firm X
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.615886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Terminated — Firm X
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure from Firm X onward
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm X
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with Firm X
terminatedby: Not terminated — post-employment state persists with continuing obligations
textreferences: Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X
triggeringevent: Engineer A leaves employment of Firm X
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.615672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A False Capacity Disparagement to Firm X Clients — Discussion Reaffirmation
type: FormerEmployerClientSolicitationwithCapacityDisparagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's solicitation communications to Firm X's clients through the Board's ethical evaluation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm X's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure
stateclass: Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement State
subject: Engineer A's statements to Firm X's clients implying Firm X cannot fulfill its obligations due to Engineer C's departure
terminatedby: Board's ethical conclusion
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure
textreferences: engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
textreferences: engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers
triggeringevent: Engineer A's statement to Firm X clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully due to Engineer C's pending departure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.621066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Former Employer Employee Solicitation — Engineer C
type: FormerEmployerEmployeeSolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From approximately one month after Engineer A's departure, when contact with Engineer C was made, through Engineer B's discovery and beyond
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
stateclass: Former Employer Employee Solicitation State
subject: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer C from Firm X to join Firm Y
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — solicitation outcome (Engineer C's decision) pending
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
triggeringevent: Engineer A contacts Engineer C and offers her a position with Firm Y
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.616110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Principal Employee Status at Firm X
type: Non-PrincipalEmployeeDepartureMitigatingStatusState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's tenure at Firm X and relevant to ethical evaluation of his post-departure conduct
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A's conduct in hiring Engineer C is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of Firm X and not a partner or principal of the firm
stateclass: Non-Principal Employee Departure Mitigating Status State
subject: Engineer A's organizational role at Firm X prior to departure
terminatedby: Not terminated — status is a historical fact relevant to ethical evaluation
textreferences: Engineer A's conduct in hiring Engineer C is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of Firm X and not a partner or principal of the firm
triggeringevent: Engineer A's departure from Firm X as an employee (not partner or principal) to establish Firm Y
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.620399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation — Discussion Reaffirmation
type: Post-EmploymentNon-CompeteMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure statement through his establishment of Firm Y and solicitation of Firm X's clients and employees
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm X's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
stateclass: Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A's stated intention not to compete with Firm X versus his subsequent competitive actions
terminatedby: Board's ethical conclusion
textreferences: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A's statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A's departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement
triggeringevent: Engineer A's explicit representation at departure that he would not compete with Firm X, followed by establishment of competing Firm Y
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.620867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C At-Will Professional Mobility
type: At-WillProfessionalMobilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's decision to depart Firm X through her engagement with Firm Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another
stateclass: At-Will Professional Mobility State
subject: Engineer C's employment status and freedom to depart Firm X for Firm Y
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another
textreferences: this is the price that a free society pays in striking a balance between the rights of individual employees and the legitimate business considerations in the employment market
triggeringevent: Engineer C's departure from Firm X in the absence of written restriction, mirroring the at-will employment framework
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.620653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C No Specialized Knowledge Restriction
type: NoSpecializedKnowledgeEmploymentRestrictionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's departure from Firm X through her engagement with Firm Y on competitive work
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X
stateclass: No Specialized Knowledge Employment Restriction State
subject: Engineer C's post-employment competitive status relative to Firm X
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts — restriction-free status persists
textreferences: it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X
textreferences: it does not appear to be anything under the facts to suggest that Engineer C is engaged in a specific project for which she has gained particular and specialized knowledge that would require Engineer C to gain the consent of Firm X or appropriate clients
triggeringevent: Engineer C's departure from Firm X to join Firm Y without having acquired specialized project-specific knowledge
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.619712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C No Written Non-Compete Agreement
type: NoWrittenNon-CompeteAgreementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's departure from Firm X onward
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: no formal written agreement between Engineer C and Firm X would address the issue of whether and under what terms Engineer C could compete with Firm X after departing from Firm X
stateclass: No Written Non-Compete Agreement State
subject: The employment relationship between Engineer C and Firm X
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: no formal written agreement between Engineer C and Firm X would address the issue of whether and under what terms Engineer C could compete with Firm X after departing from Firm X
triggeringevent: Engineer C's departure from Firm X in the absence of any executed written non-compete or non-solicitation agreement
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.619938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer Departure Three-Party Interest Balancing — Engineer A / Firm X / Clients
type: Three-PartyEngineerDepartureInterestBalancingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure from Firm X through the Board's ethical evaluation of all competitive conduct
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm X's clients
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:12:47.698538+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients
stateclass: Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing State
subject: The competitive situation created by Engineer A's departure from Firm X and establishment of Firm Y
terminatedby: Board's ethical conclusion regarding Engineer A's conduct
textreferences: balancing the interests of all parties involved in this matter
textreferences: the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients
textreferences: the two competing considerations are generally viewed as important positive values that should be encouraged for the benefit of the public as well as the engineering profession as a whole
triggeringevent: Engineer A's departure from Firm X, establishment of Firm Y, hiring of Engineer C, and solicitation of Firm X's clients
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.620146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Firm X Conflict of Interest State — Engineer A Competitive Conduct
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's discovery of Engineer A's activities onward
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm X's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Firm X's position as a firm whose former employee is actively competing against it using insider knowledge and misrepresentation
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — conflict persists
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
triggeringevent: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's employee and clients in a competitive and disparaging manner
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.616550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

At-Will Employment Symmetry Applied to Engineer C Recruitment
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryandEngineerMobilityRight
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's offer of employment to Engineer C
appliedto: Engineer C's freedom to accept competing employment
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
balancingwith: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board found that Engineer A's offer of employment to Engineer C was not unethical because, absent a written agreement or specialized knowledge constraint, Engineer C had the same freedom to move to a competing firm as Firm X would have had to terminate her employment; the disruption to Firm X was acknowledged but characterized as the accepted cost of a free employment market
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The at-will symmetry principle establishes that the ethical evaluation of Engineer A's recruitment of Engineer C must begin from a presumption of permissibility, with the burden on finding a specific constraint (written agreement or specialized knowledge) that would override the default freedom
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
sourcetext: This approach is in essence the 'flip side' of the standard employment relationship where an employer, with few exceptions, may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer 'at will.'
tensionresolution: No specialized knowledge constraint or written agreement was found, so the at-will symmetry principle governed and the employment offer was held permissible
textreferences: The BER cannot find any specific language in the NSPE Code of Ethics that would prevent one engineer from offering an employment position to another engineer.
textreferences: This approach is in essence the 'flip side' of the standard employment relationship where an employer, with few exceptions, may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer 'at will.'
textreferences: While the departure of an employee is often disruptive and costly to an employer's operations as well as to a client's needs, this is the price that a free society pays in striking a balance between the rights of individual employees and the legitimate business considerations in the employment market.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.626967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition Violated By Engineer A
type: DisparagingMisrepresentationofCompetitorCapabilityProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm X Clients Engineering Services Client Targeted by Competitor Disparagement
appliedto: Firm X Incumbent Engineering Firm
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A made affirmative predictive representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform its projects successfully — a capability claim with no disclosed factual basis and made while Engineer A was simultaneously the cause of the anticipated staff departure he cited as the basis for the prediction
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The capability prediction was either false (if Firm X could in fact perform without Engineer C) or misleading (by omitting Engineer A's own causal role in creating the predicted incapacity), in either case violating the prohibition on disparaging misrepresentation
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
tensionresolution: Competitive solicitation of clients is permissible; making false or misleading capability predictions about a competitor to that competitor's clients is not, regardless of competitive context
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.608506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C Recruited Former-Employer Staff Engineer
type: RecruitedFormer-EmployerStaffEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: At-Will Employment Symmetry Applied to Engineer C Recruitment
adheres to principle: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint Applied to Engineer C
has obligation: Engineer C Competitive Employment Acceptance Confidentiality Constraint
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'current_employer': 'Firm X', 'prospective_employer': 'Firm Y'}
caseinvolvement: Current employee of Firm X who has been offered a position at Firm Y by Engineer A; her anticipated departure is being used by Engineer A as a basis for disparaging Firm X's capabilities to its clients.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'current_employer', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'recruited_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Recruited Former-Employer Staff Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
textreferences: because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.618303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity — Departure Scenario Context
type: EngineeringBusiness-ProfessionDualityIntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's establishment of Firm Y as a competing engineering business
balancingwith: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
balancingwith: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledged that establishing an independent engineering business is a legitimate and encouraged professional aspiration, but that the business pursuit must be conducted within professional ethical constraints — Engineer A's departure to establish Firm Y was legitimate in its business dimension, but his conduct in soliciting clients through disparagement violated the professional integrity dimension that constrains how business competition is conducted
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The duality principle explains why the Board did not condemn Engineer A's departure or business formation per se, while still finding his solicitation conduct unethical — the business right to compete does not override the professional obligation to compete honestly
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
sourcetext: the Board has sought to strike a fair balance between the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity, coupled with the obligation and responsibility of that engineer to his/her former employer and/or clients.
tensionresolution: The business-profession duality is resolved by permitting competition while prohibiting dishonest competitive conduct; the ethical constraints on competition are the price of professional status
textreferences: These cases are often not easily resolved because the two competing considerations are generally viewed as important positive values that should be encouraged for the benefit of the public as well as the engineering profession as a whole.
textreferences: the Board has sought to strike a fair balance between the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity, coupled with the obligation and responsibility of that engineer to his/her former employer and/or clients.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.610602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle Violated by Engineer A
type: Self-CausedIncapacityNon-ExploitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's recruitment of Engineer C combined with his subsequent client solicitation using Engineer C's departure as justification
balancingwith: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
balancingwith: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A recruited Engineer C away from Firm X and then used Engineer C's anticipated departure as the basis for telling Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform — exploiting a condition of incapacity that Engineer A himself had caused, without disclosing his own causal role to the clients being solicited
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The combination of acts — recruiting Engineer C and then using her departure as a client solicitation argument — is what the Board found particularly troubling; the self-caused nature of the alleged incapacity transforms what might otherwise be a factual observation into a deceptive misrepresentation by omission of Engineer A's own causal role
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle
sourcetext: The combination of the departure of Engineer C from Firm X and the hiring of Engineer C by Firm Y, along with the earlier expressed assurances by Engineer A about his intentions in establishing a new firm, give the Board great pause and concern in reviewing the motives and intentions of Engineer A.
tensionresolution: The self-caused incapacity exploitation compounded the other violations; the Board cited 'the combination of the departure of Engineer C from Firm X and the hiring of Engineer C by Firm Y, along with the earlier expressed assurances' as giving 'great pause and concern'
textreferences: Considering all factors and earlier BER cases on this issue, the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct.
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: The combination of the departure of Engineer C from Firm X and the hiring of Engineer C by Firm Y, along with the earlier expressed assurances by Engineer A about his intentions in establishing a new firm, give the Board great pause and concern in reviewing the motives and intentions of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.610178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Tripartite Interest Balancing Applied to Engineer A Departure Scenario
type: TripartiteInterestBalancinginEngineerDepartureScenarios
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's departure from Firm X
appliedto: Engineer A's offer of employment to Engineer C
appliedto: Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
balancingwith: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board evaluated Engineer A's conduct by balancing: (1) Firm X's clients' interest in retaining their chosen engineering firm; (2) Engineer A's and Engineer C's individual interests in career mobility and establishing independent practice; and (3) Firm X's interest in maintaining business goodwill — concluding that while Engineer A's offer to Engineer C was permissible, his disparaging representations to clients fell below ethical standards because they improperly manipulated all three interests simultaneously
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The tripartite balancing framework reveals that Engineer A's conduct was not uniformly unethical: the employment offer to Engineer C was permissible under the individual engineer mobility interest, but the disparaging client solicitation improperly exploited the client interest dimension to serve Engineer A's personal business interest at Firm X's expense
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Tripartite Interest Balancing in Engineer Departure Scenarios
sourcetext: In reviewing each case, the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension by disaggregating Engineer A's conduct into separate acts, applying the tripartite framework to each, and finding that the employment offer passed ethical scrutiny while the client disparagement failed it
textreferences: In each instance, the Board has sought to strike a fair balance between the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity, coupled with the obligation and responsibility of that engineer to his/her former employer and/or clients.
textreferences: In reviewing each case, the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients.
textreferences: Moving to the specific facts of this case and balancing the interests of all parties involved in this matter, the Board believes that Engineer A's actions in offering a position to Engineer C was not in and of itself unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.626781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation
type: Post-EmploymentNon-CompeteMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's departure from Firm X through discovery by Engineer B approximately one month later and beyond
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B (Firm X principal)
affectedparties: Firm X
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
stateclass: Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A's conduct relative to Firm X following departure
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — state persists as Engineer A continues competitive activities
textreferences: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
triggeringevent: Engineer A's departure from Firm X after representing he would not compete with Firm X, followed by establishment of Firm Y as a competing practice
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.607086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
type: IncumbentFirmPrincipalDiscoveringCompetitorMisconduct
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked By Engineer B
adheres to principle: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition Contextualizing Engineer A Conduct
has obligation: Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency
has obligation: Engineer B Self-Policing Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Principal', 'firm': 'Firm X'}
caseinvolvement: Principal of Firm X who discovers that former employee Engineer A is soliciting Firm X's staff and making disparaging representations to Firm X's clients to divert business to Firm Y.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'discovers_misconduct_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_firm', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_colleague', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer C'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.615417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition Contextualizing Engineer A Conduct
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
appliedto: Firm X Incumbent Engineering Firm
balancingwith: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
balancingwith: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: While Engineer A has a general right to compete freely in the engineering market — including by starting a new firm and seeking clients — that right operates within ethical boundaries that prohibit false representations, reputation injury, and exploitation of self-caused competitor incapacity; the case illustrates where competitive conduct crosses from permissible market participation into ethical violation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Free competition is the background norm; the ethical analysis identifies which of Engineer A's specific competitive acts fall outside the ethical boundary conditions that constrain how competition may be conducted
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X. A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
tensionresolution: The right to compete freely does not extend to false representations about non-competition, disparaging misrepresentations of competitor capability, or exploitation of self-caused competitor disadvantage
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
textreferences: Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.621302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation Violated by Engineer A
type: Non-CompetitionRepresentationIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's departure representation to Firm X
appliedto: Engineer A's subsequent solicitation of Firm X clients and staff
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A explicitly represented at departure from Firm X that he was starting a one-person firm and would not be in competition with Firm X; this representation created an ethical obligation of fidelity to the stated intent; Engineer A's subsequent direct competitive solicitation of Firm X's clients and staff constituted a violation of professional honesty norms
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The representation was not legally binding but created an ethical obligation; the Board found that Engineer A 'intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact' and that his subsequent actions were 'in direct conflict with his statement'
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
tensionresolution: The voluntary representation of non-competition, once made, constrained Engineer A's subsequent conduct beyond what the general mobility right would otherwise permit; the ethical obligation arose from the representation itself, not from any legal constraint
textreferences: Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
textreferences: Engineer A's statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A's departure from Firm X.
textreferences: However, it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement.
textreferences: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.609822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique — Engineer A NSPE Code Violation
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's statements to Firm X clients about Firm X's capacity to perform
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board cited the NSPE Code provision prohibiting engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers as directly applicable to Engineer A's statements to Firm X's clients about Firm X's alleged incapacity
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Code provision operates independently of the non-competition representation and specialized knowledge constraints; even if Engineer A had made no prior representation about non-competition, his false or misleading statements about Firm X's capacity would independently violate the reputation injury prohibition
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
tensionresolution: Free competition does not authorize false or misleading statements about competitors; the reputation injury prohibition sets the ethical floor below which competitive conduct may not fall regardless of the competitive context
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that (a) engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, and that (b) engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.610376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition Violated By Engineer A
type: TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm X Clients Engineering Services Client Targeted by Competitor Disparagement
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's representation that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform because Engineer C was leaving may have been technically grounded in a true fact (Engineer C's anticipated departure) but was crafted to create a false overall impression — that Firm X was objectively incapable — while omitting that Engineer A himself was the cause of the departure and that Firm X's actual capacity was unknown to Engineer A
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical standard is not whether individual facts cited are true but whether the overall impression conveyed is accurate; Engineer A's selective framing created a materially false impression of Firm X's incapacity
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
tensionresolution: Even if Engineer C's departure was a true anticipated fact, using it to imply Firm X's general incapacity without full context violates the prohibition on technically-true-but-misleading statements
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.617839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint Applied to Engineer C
type: CompetitiveEmploymentFreedomWithConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C Recruited Former-Employer Staff Engineer
appliedto: Firm X Incumbent Engineering Firm
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C, as a licensed professional engineer employed by Firm X, has a general right to accept employment with a competing firm (Firm Y) without ethical violation, provided she does not disclose or use confidential information from Firm X; her anticipated departure is not itself an ethical violation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer C's right to accept Engineer A's offer is protected by the principle of competitive employment freedom; the ethical analysis of this case focuses on Engineer A's conduct in exploiting that anticipated departure, not on Engineer C's decision to consider the offer
invokedby: Engineer C Recruited Former-Employer Staff Engineer
principleclass: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
tensionresolution: Engineer C's employment freedom is not constrained by Firm X's interest in retaining her; the ethical violations in this case are Engineer A's, not Engineer C's, provided Engineer C does not misuse confidential Firm X information
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.621508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer A Toward Firm X
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
appliedto: Firm X Incumbent Engineering Firm
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A made a representation to Firm X that he would not be competing with Firm X, which was either false at the time of making or became false almost immediately upon departure, as he began direct competitive conduct within one month
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The representation of non-competition was a professional representation about Engineer A's future conduct; its almost immediate falsification by Engineer A's actual conduct raises questions about whether the representation was honest when made
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
tensionresolution: Honesty in professional representations applies to representations about one's own future competitive conduct, not only to representations about qualifications; the rapid departure from the stated intent suggests the representation was not made in good faith
textreferences: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.618896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations — Engineer A Non-Competition Statement
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's departure statement about non-competition
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's statement at departure that he would start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X was treated by the Board as a professional representation that Engineer A intended to be truthful; the subsequent competitive conduct violated the honesty norm applicable to professional representations made in the context of an employment transition
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even voluntary representations made in professional contexts carry honesty obligations; the Board's finding that 'one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact' establishes that professional honesty norms attach to departure representations regardless of their legal enforceability
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact.
tensionresolution: The honesty obligation attached to the voluntary representation overrides the general competitive freedom Engineer A would otherwise have had; having made the representation, Engineer A was bound by it as a matter of professional honesty
textreferences: Engineer A's statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A's departure from Firm X.
textreferences: However, it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement.
textreferences: While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.610792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Non-Competition Representation Integrity Violated By Engineer A
type: Non-CompetitionRepresentationIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A explicitly represented to Firm X that he would start a one-person firm and would not compete with Firm X, then within one month began recruiting Firm X's staff and soliciting Firm X's clients for his new competing firm Firm Y
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The explicit pre-departure representation of non-competition created an ethical obligation of fidelity that Engineer A violated by immediately engaging in direct competitive conduct against Firm X — soliciting both staff and clients — without any disclosed change of intent
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
tensionresolution: While engineers have a general right to compete freely, that right is constrained by prior explicit representations of non-competition; the ethical violation lies not in the competition itself but in the breach of the stated representation that induced Firm X's reliance
textreferences: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.608090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Violated By Engineer A
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
appliedto: Firm X Clients Engineering Services Client Targeted by Competitor Disparagement
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A contacted Firm X's existing clients and made representations designed to injure Firm X's professional prospects by suggesting Firm X would be unable to perform its projects successfully, thereby attempting to redirect those clients to his own competing firm Firm Y
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's representations to Firm X's clients constitute an attempt to injure Firm X's professional reputation and prospects through disparaging competitive critique made while Engineer A stood to benefit directly from Firm X's diminished standing
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on reputation injury applies even in competitive contexts; free competition does not authorize false or misleading disparagement of a competitor's capability to that competitor's existing clients
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.608278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle Violated By Engineer A
type: Self-CausedIncapacityNon-ExploitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
appliedto: Engineer C Recruited Former-Employer Staff Engineer
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A first recruited Engineer C away from Firm X, then used Engineer C's anticipated departure — a departure Engineer A himself caused — as the factual predicate for telling Firm X's clients that Firm X would be unable to perform, without disclosing his own causal role in creating that alleged incapacity
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's conduct represents a compound ethical violation: first causing the condition (Engineer C's departure) and then exploiting that self-caused condition as a competitive weapon against Firm X, with the deceptive omission of his own causal role
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y. Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects.
tensionresolution: The right to recruit staff and the right to compete do not extend to using the consequences of one's own competitive conduct as a misleading basis for disparaging a competitor's capability to that competitor's clients
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.608694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
type: FormerEmployerClientSolicitationwithCapacityDisparagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From shortly after Engineer A's departure, following the solicitation of Engineer C, through Engineer B's discovery and beyond
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm X's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:48.694016+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
stateclass: Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement State
subject: Engineer A's solicitation of Firm X's clients using misleading representations about Firm X's capacity
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — solicitation campaign ongoing at time of case
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
triggeringevent: Engineer A contacts Firm X's clients and represents that Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform due to Engineer C's anticipated departure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.616309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Employment Acceptance Confidentiality Constraint
type: CompetitiveEmploymentAcceptanceWithConfidentialityConstraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C At-Will Professional Mobility
defeasible under: Engineer C No Specialized Knowledge Restriction
defeasible under: Engineer C No Written Non-Compete Agreement
casecontext: Engineer C is a current employee of Firm X who has been offered a position at Firm Y by Engineer A. As a licensed professional engineer, her right to accept competitive employment does not override her continuing confidentiality obligations to Firm X.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
derived from principle: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint Applied to Engineer C
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, upon accepting or considering the offer from Engineer A's Firm Y, was obligated to refrain from disclosing or using any confidential or proprietary information belonging to Firm X in the course of her transition to or employment with Firm Y.
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: From the time of accepting the offer through the transition and subsequent employment at Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.622702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition Violated by Engineer A
type: DisparagingMisrepresentationofCompetitorCapabilityProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's communications to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
balancingwith: Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A made representations to Firm X's clients stating or implying that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects because Engineer C was leaving — misrepresenting Firm X's capability to induce client defection to Firm Y, in violation of the NSPE Code prohibition on untruthfully criticizing other engineers to obtain professional engagements
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:21:56.514585+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The representation was doubly problematic: it was misleading about Firm X's actual capacity, and Engineer A was himself the cause of the alleged incapacity by recruiting Engineer C away — making the representation both a false capability claim and a self-caused incapacity exploitation
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
tensionresolution: No competing principle mitigated Engineer A's conduct; the combination of the false representation, the self-caused nature of the alleged incapacity, and the prior non-competition representation compounded the ethical violation
textreferences: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C's pending departure.
textreferences: the Board must conclude that Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct.
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics clearly states that (a) engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, and that (b) engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.609994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Self-Policing Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation
type: Self-PolicingProfessionPeerMisconductReportingFoundationalDutyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency
prevails over: Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency
casecontext: Engineer B is a principal of Firm X who has direct knowledge of Engineer A's departure representations and subsequent competitive misconduct, placing Engineer B in a position of both competitive interest and professional reporting obligation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked By Engineer B
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B, upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients — was obligated to report Engineer A's conduct to the appropriate licensing authority as part of the engineering profession's foundational self-policing duty.
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: Upon learning of Engineer A's disparaging representations to Firm X's clients
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.622339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Obligation Non-Disparagement of Firm X
type: CollegialObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation — Firm X
defeasible under: Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
casecontext: Engineer A's campaign of disparaging representations to Firm X's clients constitutes a direct violation of the collegial duty of respect and fairness owed to professional peers, compounded by the fact that Engineer A was formerly a member of Firm X.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique — Engineer A NSPE Code Violation
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Collegial Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward his former professional peers at Firm X, to refrain from making representations to clients that were designed to injure Firm X's professional standing and undermine its client relationships.
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the date of departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.622900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Non-Exploitation Violation
type: Self-CausedStaffDepartureNon-ExploitationCompetitiveSolicitationProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Former Employer Employee Solicitation — Engineer C
defeasible under: Engineer Departure Three-Party Interest Balancing — Engineer A / Firm X / Clients
prevails over: Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
casecontext: Engineer A first recruited Engineer C away from Firm X, then used Engineer C's anticipated departure as the factual predicate for telling Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform, compounding the ethical violation by exploiting a self-caused diminishment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle Violated by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Self-Caused Staff Departure Non-Exploitation Competitive Solicitation Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using Engineer C's anticipated departure from Firm X — a departure Engineer A himself caused by recruiting Engineer C — as a basis for making disparaging representations to Firm X's clients about Firm X's capacity to perform.
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A offered Engineer C a position through the period of client solicitation
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.607599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency
type: CompetitivePeerMisconductReportingMotivationTransparencyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Self-Policing Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation
defeasible under: Firm X Conflict of Interest State — Engineer A Competitive Conduct
casecontext: Engineer B has a direct competitive interest in the outcome of any misconduct report against Engineer A, since Engineer A is actively soliciting Firm X's clients. This competitive interest does not extinguish the reporting duty but requires transparency about the relationship.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked By Engineer B
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B, as a direct competitor of Engineer A whose clients are being solicited, was obligated to report Engineer A's misconduct to the licensing authority while being transparent about the competitive relationship, ensuring the report is factually grounded and not merely a competitive tactic.
sourcetext: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
temporalscope: Upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct and before or at the time of filing any report
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.622521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer A False Capacity Disparagement to Firm X Clients — Discussion Reaffirmation
defeasible under: Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
casecontext: Engineer A's representation that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform may have been technically grounded in Engineer C's departure but was designed to mislead clients about Firm X's overall capacity and to generate competitive advantage for Firm Y.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition Violated By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making statements to Firm X's clients that, while potentially grounded in a factual premise (Engineer C's anticipated departure), were structured to create a false or exaggerated impression of Firm X's incapacity in order to divert clients to Firm Y.
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
temporalscope: During the period of client solicitation following departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.607774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked By Engineer B
type: EngineeringSelf-PolicingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
balancingwith: Disinterested Professional Duty to Report Peer Misconduct
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, upon learning of Engineer A's misconduct — including the false non-competition representation and the disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients — has an obligation as a licensed professional engineer to report Engineer A's conduct to the appropriate professional or licensing authority, not merely to protect Firm X's commercial interests but to uphold the profession's integrity
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:14:48.554502+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer B's discovery of Engineer A's ethical violations triggers the profession's self-policing obligation; the fact that Engineer B has a competitive interest in the outcome does not eliminate the reporting obligation, though it may affect the framing
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
principleclass: Engineering Self-Policing Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
tensionresolution: The self-policing obligation applies even when the reporting engineer has a competitive interest; the obligation is grounded in professional duty to the profession's integrity, not in the absence of self-interest
textreferences: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.607399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
type: DepartingEngineerFormerEmployerClientSolicitationHonestyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations
competes with: Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation
casecontext: Engineer A used knowledge of Engineer C's anticipated departure — knowledge he possessed because he had recruited Engineer C — to make representations to Firm X's clients designed to undermine confidence in Firm X and divert business to Firm Y.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer A Toward Firm X
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Departing Engineer Former Employer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct any solicitation of Firm X's clients honestly and without misrepresentation of Firm X's capabilities, refraining from using insider knowledge of Engineer C's departure as a basis for misleading representations about Firm X's capacity.
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
temporalscope: During the period of competitive client solicitation following departure from Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.622119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
type: DepartingEngineerStartingCompetingFirm
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition Violated by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity — Departure Scenario Context
adheres to principle: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition Contextualizing Engineer A Conduct
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer A Toward Firm X
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations — Engineer A Non-Competition Statement
adheres to principle: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Violated By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Violated By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle Violated By Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations
has obligation: Engineer A Collegial Obligation Non-Disparagement of Firm X
has obligation: Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Non-Exploitation Violation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'firm_founded': 'Firm Y', 'prior_employer': 'Firm X', 'representation_made': 'Would not compete with Firm X'}
caseinvolvement: Left Firm X after representing he would not compete, then started Firm Y, solicited Firm X's employee Engineer C, and made disparaging misrepresentations to Firm X's clients to divert business to Firm Y.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:10:44.277110+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'recruiter', 'target': 'Engineer C'}
relationships: {'type': 'soliciting_competitor', 'target': 'Firm X Clients'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
sourcetext: Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that... Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.618087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
type: Non-CompetitionRepresentationFidelityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
competes with: Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Terminated — Firm X
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation — Discussion Reaffirmation
prevails over: Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
casecontext: Engineer A departed Firm X after representing he would not compete, then within one month began recruiting Firm X's employee Engineer C and soliciting Firm X's clients for his new competing firm Firm Y.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations — Engineer A Non-Competition Statement
derived from principle: Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation Violated by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to honor his explicit representation to Firm X that he would start a one-person firm and would not compete with Firm X, and to refrain from immediately engaging in competitive solicitation of Firm X's clients and staff within one month of departure.
sourcetext: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
temporalscope: From the date of departure from Firm X through the period covered by the non-competition representation
textreferences: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
textreferences: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.621660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryThroughPredictiveDisparagementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Collegial Obligation Non-Disparagement of Firm X
competes with: Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
competes with: Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Non-Exploitation Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
defeasible under: Engineer A Non-Principal Employee Status at Firm X
prevails over: Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations
casecontext: Engineer A contacted Firm X's existing clients and made representations about Firm X's future inability to perform, using Engineer C's anticipated departure as the basis for the prediction, in order to solicit those clients for Firm Y.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition Violated by Engineer A
derived from principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique — Engineer A NSPE Code Violation
discoveredincase: 127
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 127
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T03:16:39.611045+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Through Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making predictive representations to Firm X's clients that Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects, as such representations were designed to injure Firm X's professional reputation and undermine client confidence for competitive gain.
sourcetext: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
temporalscope: Upon initiating contact with Firm X's clients after departure
textreferences: Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
textreferences: Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 127 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T03:44:36.621880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 127 Extraction