As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s... BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
1960s–1970s legal challenges before BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, 84-2
The normative baseline for evaluating engineering advertising ethics shifted from prohibition-based to truthfulness-based; engineers now have affirmative permission to advertise subject to honesty constraints rather than facing near-categorical prohibition
Historical; 1960s through 1980s, informing present analysis
Over the period from the 1960s through the 1970s legal challenges and subsequent BER opinions (79-6, 82-1, 84-2), the ethical standards governing engineering advertising underwent fundamental transformation, shifting from near-prohibition to regulated permissibility. This historical evolution is an exogenous background event that shapes the normative framework within which all four situations are evaluated.
Advertising Ethics Norms Evolved (Event 6) → Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1) and Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
Over the period from the 1960s through the 1970s, legal challenges and subsequent BER opinions (79-6 and related rulings) reshaped the standards governing engineer advertising, creating an evolving normative framework within which Engineer A's card distribution decisions must be evaluated, the ambiguity in those decisions is partly a product of this normative evolution
Advertising Ethics Norms Evolved (Event 6)
If advertising ethics norms had remained static and universally clear, Engineer A would have had unambiguous guidance on what disclosures were required; the ambiguity in Situations 1 and 3 would have been more clearly resolved as violations or non-violations
Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1) and Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
BER opinions establishing new standards for permissible professional advertising
Engineer A operating during or after the transitional period when old and new norms coexisted
Lack of clear, universally adopted standards across all states during the transitional period
Prior restrictive advertising norms that were subsequently challenged and relaxed
NSPE and State Licensure Boards (institutional responsibility for norm clarity); Engineer A (individual responsibility to stay current with evolving standards)
Normative evolution + transitional ambiguity + Engineer A's card decisions made during or after the transition = contextual backdrop that shapes ethical evaluation of Engineer A's conduct
The BER's identification of state registration law conformance as one of the two primary considerations governing engineering advertising ethics.
Engineers and Engineering Firms (General)
Advertising State Registration Law Conformance Constraint
All engineering advertising activities must conform to the registration laws and rules of professional practice of each state in which the advertising occurs, satisfying both the letter and spirit of applicable state registration requirements, including restrictions on soliciting work in states where the engineer or firm is not duly licensed.
NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering registration laws and rules of practice
such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
Applies to all advertising activities in all jurisdictions
some states have regulations which prohibit engineers or engineering firms from seeking or performing work in a particular state unless the engineer or engineering firm is duly licensed or registered in that state
the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code
this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state
The BER's closing observation that engineers and firms must keep marketing materials accurate and current, noting that electronic tools have reduced the burden of doing so.
Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
All engineers and engineering firms are constrained to continuously maintain and update marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure accuracy, truthfulness, and non-deception regarding qualifications and licensure status, with the electronic era reducing the cost and time burden of compliance.
engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive
Ongoing — applies continuously throughout the engineer's or firm's practice
Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible
In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced
These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications
BER Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Application
Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to recognize and apply the historical evolution of advertising ethics — from pre-1960s prohibitionist approaches through antitrust and commercial free speech challenges — arriving at the contemporary two-primary-considerations framework (truthfulness and state registration conformance) for evaluating advertising ethics.
BER framing of the analytical approach to business card ethics across all four situations
Explicit acknowledgment that advertising ethics opinions have changed over time, identification of the legal challenges of the 1960s and 1970s as the driver of change, and articulation of the contemporary two-consideration framework
opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations.
This Board believes that contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
BER Advertising Ethics Precedent Corpus Navigation for Business Card Analysis
Advertising Ethics BER Precedent Corpus Navigation Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to navigate the extensive corpus of over 30 prior advertising ethics cases — including key antitrust-framework cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 — to ground its analysis of business card ethics in a well-developed precedent framework.
BER analysis of business card distribution ethics across four situations involving Engineer A
Reference to the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifying over 30 prior advertising cases, and specific citation of cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 as establishing the antitrust and commercial free speech framework for contemporary advertising ethics analysis
the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations.
BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
The manner in which engineers advertise, represent themselves, or offer their services to the public has long been a subject of NSPE Board of Ethical Review opinions.
Cited as incorporating the perspective of commercial free speech and antitrust considerations into engineering advertising ethics
the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations
Cited to demonstrate the breadth of prior BER advertising opinions; identifies over 30 previous cases dealing with advertising considerations
BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 before present BER opinion analysis
BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective [on commercial free speech and antitrust].
Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer.
If the engineer is not licensed in the state where he/she resides... then the card should clearly indicate the state(s) in which the person is licensed.
the engineer whose name and 'P.E.' designation appears on a business card is licensed in the state indicated by the physical address on the card.
The normative standard developed and applied by the BER governing how engineers must represent licensure status on business cards, including the requirement to list a physical address and identify states of licensure to avoid deception
Professional engineering ethics bodies and state licensing boards
business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information
Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only
business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E
Engineer A across all four situations; Engineer D in Situation 4
Directly governs all four situations: whether omitting state licensure identifiers, listing an address in an unlicensed state, or distributing a card outside one's licensed jurisdiction constitutes deceptive or misleading representation of licensure status
Business Development Representative Business Card Clarity
Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
A business development marketing engineer must possess capability to present licensure status information on business cards with sufficient clarity — identifying states of licensure, including a mailing address, and differentiating office location from licensure jurisdiction — across all states where cards are distributed.
Business development representative distributing PE-designated cards at business meetings in multiple states.
Obligation to distribute PE-designated cards that correctly identify licensure states and include a mailing address when conducting business development activities across multiple states.
Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer
Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed.
Business Development Representative Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Recognition
Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Discrimination Capability
A business development representative must possess the capability to recognize that tendering a business card at business and social functions does not constitute an offer to do engineering work, while also recognizing that engaging in business development activities without firm licensure in the state crosses the line into deception beyond mere card tendering.
Business development representative operating in states where the firm may or may not have licensed engineers
Correct assessment of when business card distribution constitutes permissible business etiquette versus when broader business development activities without firm licensure constitute impermissible solicitation
it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states
This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card.
the act of an engineer handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not, ipso facto, rise to the level of an offer to do work
Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Verification
Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Verification Capability
A business development representative of an engineering firm must possess the capability to verify that the firm employs duly licensed engineers in any state where business development activities are conducted, recognizing that tendering business cards and prospecting for work without such firm licensure constitutes deception and violates state engineering laws.
Business development representative tendering cards at business and social functions in states where the representative may not be personally licensed
Determination of whether the firm has licensed engineers in a given state before engaging in business development activities, including tendering business cards at business and social functions
it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state
this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state.
Business Development Representative Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Compliance
Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
A business development marketing engineer who distributes business cards across multiple states must possess capability to identify and apply the specific licensure disclosure rules of each state where cards are distributed, ensuring compliance with each jurisdiction's requirements.
Business development representative distributing cards in states where licensure status varies.
Need to comply with varying state rules when distributing PE-designated business cards at business meetings across States B, C, D, and E.
Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
Card content now in possession of a licensed engineer who has both the professional knowledge to evaluate its implications and a potential obligation to report apparent violations; the situation escalates from social to professional-regulatory
After Engineer A's social visit; Situation 4 scenario
Friend X, a non-engineer acquaintance, passes Engineer A's business card to Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, during a social context. This transfer of the card beyond its original recipient extends the potential reach and consequences of the card's content into a new professional context.
CausalLink_Distribute Card on Social Visi
CausalLink_Distribute Cross-State Jurisdi
CausalLink_Distribute Fully Disclosed PE
CausalLink_Distribute Unlabeled PE Busine
CausalLink_Report Engineer A to Licensure
Situation 1. Engineer A's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
The Board found that Engineer A's distribution of a business card in State E bearing the 'P.E.' title without disclosing the specific states of licensure and without including a physical mailing address was deceptive and violated the NSPE Code of Ethics, as it could mislead the public into believing Engineer A was licensed in State E.
Beyond the Board's finding that Situation 1 is unethical, the violation is best understood as arising from the combination of two independent omissions — the absence of a physical mailing address and the failure to identify the states of licensure — rather than from either deficiency alone. The address omission prevents any recipient from inferring a geographic scope of practice, while the licensure-state omission prevents any recipient from verifying whether Engineer A is authorized to practice in their jurisdiction. Together, these omissions create a card that affirmatively invites engineering engagement while withholding every piece of information a prospective client would need to assess Engineer A's legal authority to serve them. Even if one omission standing alone might be characterized as incomplete disclosure rather than material misrepresentation, the cumulative effect of both omissions crosses the threshold into deceptive conduct under Code provisions I.5, III.3, and III.3.a. Correcting only one deficiency — for example, adding a mailing address without identifying licensed states, or listing licensed states without any address — would likely be insufficient to cure the violation, because the remaining omission would still leave a recipient unable to determine whether Engineer A is lawfully available to perform engineering services in their jurisdiction.
The Board's finding that Situation 1 is unethical also implicates the use of the 'P.E.' title in State E, where Engineer A holds no license. Distributing a card bearing the P.E. designation in a jurisdiction where one is not licensed is not merely an advertising irregularity — it may independently constitute a violation of State E's registration laws under Code provision III.8.a, which requires conformance with state registration laws in the practice of engineering. The business card, by identifying Engineer A as a P.E. in the context of a business meeting, functions as at minimum a preliminary solicitation of engineering services. If State E's registration statutes prohibit the use of the P.E. title by unlicensed individuals within the state's borders — as many states' laws do — then the card's distribution in that meeting is independently impermissible regardless of whether a mailing address or licensure states are listed. The Board's analysis focused on the advertising ethics dimensions of the omissions but did not fully develop this independent registration-law dimension, which strengthens the violation finding and suggests that even a corrected card listing licensed states and a mailing address might still be impermissible in State E if Engineer A is not licensed there and the card is being used to solicit engineering work.
The Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical, despite the address-licensure geographic mismatch, implicitly establishes that explicit and accurate disclosure of licensed states on a business card is the single most critical variable in distinguishing ethical from unethical multi-state business card practice. By listing States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure while also listing a State E mailing address, Engineer A's Situation 2 card rebuts any inference that State E licensure exists. This precedent suggests that explicit licensure disclosure functions as a corrective mechanism capable of neutralizing the misleading inference that would otherwise arise from a geographic address mismatch. However, this principle has limits: the disclosure must be sufficiently prominent and unambiguous that a reasonable recipient would actually notice and process it. A card that buries licensure-state information in fine print while prominently featuring a State E address might not satisfy the spirit of this standard even if it technically lists the licensed states. The Board's reasoning thus implicitly requires that the disclosure be presented in a manner that a reasonable professional recipient would recognize as a meaningful qualification of the geographic representation, not merely a technical footnote.
The Board's finding that Situation 3 is ethical rests critically on the factual premise that Engineer A performs only non-engineering consulting services in State B. This finding carries an important forward-looking implication that the Board did not explicitly address: the ethical compliance of the Situation 3 card is contingent on Engineer A maintaining that service-scope boundary. If Engineer A were to begin performing engineering services out of the State B office — even informally or incidentally — the card would immediately become ethically deficient because it would then represent a licensed P.E. offering engineering services from a location in a jurisdiction where he holds no license, without any disclosure that the State B office is restricted to non-engineering work. This creates an ongoing obligation for Engineer A to proactively update or withdraw the card before any transition in service scope occurs, not merely after the fact. The Marketing Communication Currency Obligation principle supports this conclusion: engineers bear a continuous duty to ensure that their marketing materials accurately reflect their current qualifications and service scope, and a change in the nature of services offered from a listed office location triggers an immediate obligation to revise the card.
The Board's finding that Situation 3 is ethical also leaves unresolved a genuine tension between the Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility principle and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle. Even when Engineer A's card accurately states that licensure is held only in State C, a recipient in State C who sees a State B office address alongside the P.E. designation may reasonably infer that licensed engineering services are available from that State B office. The card does not affirmatively state that the State B office is restricted to non-engineering consulting. The Board's conclusion that the card is ethical appears to assume that the explicit notation of State C-only licensure is sufficient to discharge the duty of honest representation, but this assumption may not hold in all distribution contexts. When the card is distributed in State C to clients who may later seek engineering services and contact the State B office, the absence of an explicit scope-of-service qualifier for the State B office creates a residual inferential risk. A more robust ethical practice — though not strictly required by the Board's analysis — would be to add a brief notation on the card clarifying that the State B office provides non-engineering consulting services only, thereby eliminating the ambiguity rather than merely mitigating it through licensure-state disclosure.
The Board's finding that Engineer D's complaint in Situation 4 was improper introduces an important but underexplored principle: the duty to report potential violations is not unconditional and must be calibrated against the epistemic quality of the information available to the reporting engineer. Engineer D acted on secondhand information — a card passed through Friend X — without any direct knowledge of the circumstances under which it was distributed, the nature of the meeting in which it was shared, or whether Engineer A had offered or performed any engineering services in State C. The card itself contained only State B information and therefore made no affirmative representation about State C practice. The social context of the original distribution further undermines any inference of unlicensed practice solicitation. The Board's implicit conclusion is that engineers who invoke reporting obligations bear a threshold duty of epistemic verification before filing complaints, particularly when the alleged violation involves a passive instrument like a business card distributed in a non-professional context. Filing a complaint based on secondhand information about a social card exchange, without any evidence of actual engineering solicitation or service in the unlicensed jurisdiction, fails to satisfy the proportionality and prudence standards that the NSPE Code's spirit requires of engineers who exercise reporting authority. This does not eliminate the reporting obligation in cases of genuine evidence, but it does establish that the threshold of certainty required before filing must be proportionate to the severity and clarity of the alleged violation.
Across all four situations, the Board's analysis collectively establishes a graduated framework for evaluating business card ethics in multi-state engineering practice. At the most permissive end, a card distributed in a purely social context with accurate jurisdictional information raises no ethical concern regardless of where it travels through third-party redistribution (Situation 4). A card that accurately differentiates office locations from licensure jurisdictions and restricts non-licensed-state offices to non-engineering services is ethical when distributed in the licensed state (Situation 3). A card that lists an address in an unlicensed state is ethical if it explicitly and accurately identifies the states of licensure, thereby rebutting any geographic inference of unlicensed practice (Situation 2). A card that omits both address and licensure-state information is unethical because it provides no basis for a recipient to assess the engineer's legal authority to serve them (Situation 1). This framework implies that the core ethical obligation is not geographic alignment between address and licensure, but rather informational sufficiency: the card must contain enough information that a reasonable recipient can determine, or at minimum investigate, whether the engineer is legally authorized to provide engineering services in the recipient's jurisdiction. The antitrust and commercial free speech context recognized in prior BER cases reinforces that this framework should not be applied so restrictively as to prohibit legitimate multi-state practice marketing, but neither should it be applied so permissively as to allow engineers to use the P.E. title in ways that obscure the jurisdictional limits of their licensure.
Situation 2. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
The Board found that Engineer A's business card in Situation 2, which listed a State E residential address but explicitly identified the states in which Engineer A held licensure, was sufficiently transparent and non-deceptive to comply with the NSPE Code of Ethics, as the explicit licensure disclosure rebutted any false inference of State E licensure.
In response to Q101: The omission of a physical mailing address on Engineer A's Situation 1 business card is best characterized not merely as incomplete disclosure but as a material omission that enables deception, and that distinction does change the ethical analysis. A business card distributed in a professional context carries an implicit representation that the holder is available to perform the services suggested by the credentials displayed. When Engineer A lists 'P.E.' without anchoring that credential to any jurisdiction, the card affirmatively invites recipients to infer that licensed engineering services are available in whatever jurisdiction the card is received — here, State E. The absence of a mailing address compounds this problem because it removes the geographic anchor that would otherwise allow a recipient to assess whether Engineer A's licensure is relevant to their needs. The Board's finding of a violation in Situation 1 rests on the combination of both omissions, but the licensure-state omission is the more ethically significant deficiency because it directly implicates the public's ability to assess whether Engineer A is legally authorized to serve them. The address omission is a secondary but reinforcing failure: without a physical address, there is no contextual signal to prompt a recipient to ask which states Engineer A is licensed in. Together, the two omissions create a card that is not merely incomplete but functionally misleading under Code provisions III.3.a and II.5.a.
In response to Q102: A business card transitions from a passive identification instrument into an active solicitation of engineering services when its content, context of distribution, and the reasonable inferences it generates collectively signal an offer to perform licensed engineering work. The threshold is not purely formal — it depends on what a reasonable recipient in the relevant jurisdiction would understand the card to represent. A card listing 'P.E.' distributed at a business meeting focused on engineering procurement crosses that threshold because the professional context transforms the credential display into an implicit offer of services. By contrast, the same card distributed at a purely social gathering, as in Situation 4, does not cross the threshold because the social context suppresses the inference that an offer of professional services is being made. This distinction has direct bearing on whether distributing a card in an unlicensed jurisdiction violates state registration laws: if the card functions as a solicitation, it implicates Code provision III.8.a's requirement to conform with state registration laws; if it functions as mere identification, it does not. The Board's treatment of Situation 4 implicitly endorses this threshold analysis by finding no violation when Engineer A distributed a State B card during a social visit to State C.
In response to Q103: If Engineer A in Situation 3 were to begin performing engineering services in State B — where he holds no license — the existing business card would immediately become ethically deficient, and Engineer A's obligation to update his marketing materials would arise before that transition occurs, not after. The card's current ethical compliance rests entirely on the accuracy of its representation that Engineer A performs only non-engineering consulting in State B. Once that factual predicate changes, the card's notation of State B offices combined with the 'P.E.' title would create a materially misleading impression that licensed engineering services are available from that office. The principle of ongoing marketing material accuracy currency, which the Board recognizes as a general obligation for all engineers, requires proactive updating rather than reactive correction. Engineer A cannot ethically distribute a card that was accurate yesterday if he knows today that it will be inaccurate tomorrow in a material respect. The obligation to update arises at the point of decision to change service scope, not at the point of first distribution of the outdated card.
In response to Q104: The Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical does implicitly establish a precedent that explicit licensure disclosure can cure an otherwise misleading geographic representation, but the precedent has important limits. The State E address on Engineer A's Situation 2 card would, standing alone, create a reasonable inference that Engineer A is licensed to practice engineering in State E. The explicit listing of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure rebuts that inference by affirmatively informing the recipient that State E is not among them. The precedent therefore establishes that explicit disclosure of actual licensure jurisdictions is sufficient to offset geographic ambiguity created by an address mismatch — but only when the disclosure is clear, prominent, and unambiguous. The precedent does not establish that any level of explicit disclosure can offset any degree of misleading representation. A card that listed licensure states in fine print while prominently displaying a State E address and 'P.E.' designation would not satisfy the same standard, because the disclosure would not effectively counteract the dominant misleading impression. The ethical sufficiency of explicit disclosure is therefore calibrated to whether a reasonable recipient would actually register and understand the disclosure in the context of the card's overall presentation.
In response to Q201: The principle of antitrust and commercial speech tempering of advertising ethics does not provide engineers a blanket right to distribute business cards in unlicensed jurisdictions in defiance of state registration laws. The commercial free speech framework, as reflected in BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2, operates primarily to prevent professional codes from imposing restrictions on truthful, non-deceptive advertising that go beyond what is necessary to protect the public. It does not override state registration laws, which are external legal requirements rather than internal code restrictions. An engineer who distributes a card in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed and where the card could be understood as soliciting engineering services is not engaging in protected commercial speech — they are potentially violating a state law that the NSPE Code itself requires them to obey under provision III.8.a. The antitrust and commercial speech framework therefore narrows the scope of permissible code-based advertising restrictions but does not displace jurisdiction-specific registration compliance obligations.
In response to Q202: The tension between the improper complaint filing prohibition applied against Engineer D and the general professional duty to report potential violations is real, and the appropriate calibration of epistemic certainty required before filing a complaint must account for both the seriousness of the alleged violation and the reliability of the information on which the complaint is based. The Board's finding that Engineer D acted improperly in Situation 4 rests on two compounding epistemic failures: Engineer D acted on secondhand information from a non-engineer, and the underlying conduct — distributing a State B card during a social visit to State C — did not constitute a violation in the first place. The threshold for filing a complaint should therefore be understood as requiring both a reasonable basis to believe a violation occurred and a reasonable basis to believe the information supporting that belief is reliable. When both conditions are absent, as in Situation 4, the filing of a complaint is not a fulfillment of the reporting duty but an abuse of the reporting mechanism. When both conditions are present — for example, when an engineer personally witnesses another engineer performing unlicensed engineering services — the reporting duty is clearly triggered. The difficult cases lie between these poles, where the alleged violation is serious but the information is secondhand: in those cases, engineers should seek to verify the information before filing, rather than treating the reporting obligation as self-executing upon receipt of any allegation.
In response to Q203: There is a genuine tension between the qualification transparency principle — which drove the finding that Situation 1 is unethical — and the principle that a business card in a social or general business context carries a lower duty of comprehensive disclosure than a formal engineering proposal. However, the tension is resolved by the nature of the meeting context rather than by the card's format. In Situation 1, Engineer A distributed the card at a business meeting, not a social gathering. The business meeting context activates the full qualification transparency obligation because recipients are likely evaluating Engineer A as a potential service provider. The lower disclosure duty associated with social contexts applies only when the card is distributed in circumstances where no reasonable recipient would understand it as an offer of professional services — as in Situation 4's social visit. The business card format does not itself determine the disclosure standard; the context of distribution does. This means that the same card could satisfy ethical requirements in one context and fail them in another, which is consistent with the Board's differential treatment of Situations 1 and 4.
In response to Q204: The tension between the non-engineering expert services permissibility principle and the honesty in professional representations principle in Situation 3 is real but is adequately resolved by the explicit licensure notation on the card. The concern is legitimate: a recipient in State B who receives a card listing State B offices and displaying 'P.E.' may reasonably infer that licensed engineering services are available from that office. However, the card's explicit statement that licensure is held only in State C directly contradicts that inference and places the recipient on notice that engineering services, if needed, would be provided under State C licensure. The honesty obligation does not require Engineer A to include a further disclaimer specifying that the State B office provides only non-engineering consulting — the explicit licensure limitation already communicates the material fact that State B is not a licensed engineering jurisdiction for Engineer A. The ethical sufficiency of this disclosure depends on the card being distributed in State C, where recipients are more likely to understand the significance of the State C licensure notation. If the card were distributed in State B, the analysis might differ because State B recipients would be more likely to act on the inference that local engineering services are available.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A in Situation 1 did not fulfill a categorical duty of non-deception. The Kantian analysis does not require that any recipient was actually misled — it requires that the maxim underlying Engineer A's action be universalizable without contradiction. The maxim implicit in distributing a card that lists 'P.E.' without identifying licensure jurisdictions or a mailing address is roughly: 'When presenting professional credentials, omit geographic limitations on those credentials.' If universalized, this maxim would systematically undermine the public's ability to assess whether engineers are legally qualified to serve them, which would contradict the very purpose of professional credentialing. The omission is therefore not merely imprudent but categorically impermissible under a deontological framework, regardless of whether any individual recipient was actually deceived. The duty of non-deception is violated at the point of distribution, not at the point of reliance.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical produces better public-protection outcomes than a stricter rule requiring perfect address-licensure geographic alignment. A strict alignment rule would prohibit engineers from listing a home or primary business address in a state where they are not licensed, even when they explicitly disclose their actual licensure jurisdictions. This would impose significant practical burdens on multi-state practitioners without meaningfully improving public protection, because the explicit licensure disclosure already provides recipients with the information they need to assess Engineer A's qualifications. The consequentialist calculus favors the Board's approach: explicit disclosure of licensure states is the information that actually protects the public, and requiring address-licensure alignment as an additional formal requirement would add compliance costs without proportionate public benefit. However, the consequentialist analysis also supports maintaining a high standard for the clarity and prominence of the explicit disclosure, because a disclosure that recipients are unlikely to notice or understand would not produce the public-protection benefits that justify the Board's permissive approach to address mismatches.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer D's decision to file a licensure board complaint against Engineer A in Situation 4 — based entirely on secondhand information about a card distributed in a social context — does not reflect the professional virtues of prudence, fairness, and epistemic humility that the NSPE Code expects. Prudence would have required Engineer D to assess whether the conduct described actually constituted a violation before filing, and a prudent engineer with knowledge of multi-state licensing rules would have recognized that distributing a State B card during a social visit to State C does not constitute unlicensed practice. Fairness would have required Engineer D to consider whether Engineer A deserved the burden of a licensure board investigation based on a secondhand account of conduct that, even if accurately described, was not a violation. Epistemic humility would have required Engineer D to acknowledge the limits of secondhand information from a non-engineer before treating it as a sufficient basis for a formal complaint. The filing of the complaint reflects instead a disposition toward reflexive enforcement that mistakes procedural action for professional virtue — a failure that the Board implicitly identifies by finding Engineer D's conduct inconsistent with the Code.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, the NSPE Code's duty of honesty in professional representations does not impose a strict obligation on Engineer A in Situation 3 to include an additional clarification on the business card specifying that the State B office is associated only with non-engineering consulting services. The card's explicit notation that licensure is held only in State C is sufficient to discharge the honesty duty when the card is distributed in State C, because it provides the material fact — the geographic scope of licensure — that a recipient needs to avoid being misled about Engineer A's engineering qualifications. A deontological analysis focused on the duty of non-deception asks whether the card's content, taken as a whole, would lead a reasonable recipient to form a false belief about a material fact. The explicit State C licensure notation prevents the formation of a false belief about licensure scope, even if it does not affirmatively explain the nature of the State B office's activities. The duty of honesty requires disclosure of material facts, not exhaustive explanation of every aspect of the engineer's business structure. However, this analysis is sensitive to the distribution context: if the card were distributed in State B, where recipients might more readily assume that local engineering services are available, the existing notation might be insufficient to discharge the honesty duty without additional clarification.
In response to Q401: The Board's finding of a violation in Situation 1 rests on the combination of both omissions — the absence of a mailing address and the absence of licensure-state identification — but the licensure-state omission is the primary and independently sufficient basis for the violation. Correcting only the address omission while continuing to omit the states of licensure would not have rendered the card ethical, because the core problem is that recipients cannot assess whether Engineer A is licensed to serve them in their jurisdiction. A card listing a mailing address in State B but still displaying 'P.E.' without identifying States B, C, and D as the licensure jurisdictions would still create a misleading impression that Engineer A is available to perform engineering services in State E. Conversely, correcting only the licensure-state omission — by listing States B, C, and D — while omitting a mailing address would likely have been sufficient to render the card ethical, because the licensure-state disclosure provides the material information needed to prevent deception. This analysis is confirmed by the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical: that card lists a State E address (which could itself be misleading) but is saved by the explicit identification of licensure states. The address omission in Situation 1 is therefore a secondary violation that compounds the primary licensure-state omission rather than independently driving the finding.
In response to Q402: If Engineer A in Situation 2 had listed a State E address without explicitly identifying the states of licensure on the card, the Board would almost certainly have reached the same conclusion as in Situation 1 — a finding of violation. This counterfactual confirms that explicit licensure-state disclosure is the single most critical variable distinguishing ethical from unethical multi-state business card practice. The State E address, standing alone, creates the same inferential risk as the absence of a mailing address in Situation 1: it invites recipients to assume that Engineer A is licensed to practice engineering in the jurisdiction associated with the address. Without the explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the actual licensure jurisdictions, there is no information on the card to rebut that inference. The Board's differential treatment of Situations 1 and 2 therefore turns entirely on the presence or absence of explicit licensure-state identification, not on the presence or absence of a mailing address. This confirms that the address is ethically relevant primarily as a geographic anchor that creates or reinforces jurisdictional inferences — and that those inferences must be corrected by explicit licensure disclosure whenever they could mislead recipients about the engineer's legal authority to practice.
In response to Q403: If Engineer A in Situation 3 had been performing engineering services out of the State B office while holding only a State C license, the business card's notation of State B offices would have constituted a material misrepresentation of licensure status sufficient to render the card unethical — and the Board's analysis would have shifted fundamentally. The ethical compliance of Situation 3 rests entirely on the factual predicate that Engineer A performs only non-engineering consulting in State B. If that predicate were false, the card would not merely be incomplete — it would affirmatively misrepresent that licensed engineering services are available from a State B office when Engineer A has no legal authority to provide them there. The office-licensure differentiation principle that saves Situation 3 depends on the differentiation being real and maintained in practice, not merely asserted on the card. This analysis also reveals that the card's ethical status in Situation 3 is contingent on ongoing behavioral compliance: the card is ethical only so long as Engineer A actually limits his State B activities to non-engineering consulting. The moment he begins performing engineering services in State B, the card becomes a vehicle for misrepresentation regardless of what it says, because the disclaimer of State C-only licensure would be contradicted by the actual service delivery.
In response to Q404: If Engineer D had personally witnessed Engineer A distributing the State B business card in State C — rather than receiving the card secondhand through Friend X — the Board's conclusion about the propriety of Engineer D's complaint would likely have been the same, because the underlying conduct still would not have constituted a violation. The social-visit context independently immunizes the card distribution from ethical scrutiny: a card distributed during a social visit does not constitute a solicitation of engineering services in State C, regardless of how Engineer D learned of it. The firsthand versus secondhand distinction matters for the epistemic reliability of the complaint, but it does not change the substantive analysis of whether the underlying conduct was a violation. Even if Engineer D had personally received the card from Engineer A during the social visit, filing a complaint with the State C licensure board would still have been improper because there was no violation to report. The social context is therefore the primary immunizing factor, and the secondhand information problem is a secondary compounding factor that makes Engineer D's conduct additionally problematic by combining substantive error with epistemic recklessness.
Situation 3. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
The Board found that Engineer A's distribution of a business card listing State B offices while licensed only in State C was consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics because Engineer A was providing non-engineering consulting services in State B and the firm employed licensed engineers in State B, satisfying the prerequisite for ethical business development activity.
The most fundamental tension in this case — between Qualification Transparency and the Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument principle — was resolved by the Board through a context-sensitive but asymmetric rule: the social or general business context of card distribution does not reduce the duty of comprehensive disclosure; it merely affects whether distribution itself constitutes an unlicensed practice violation. In Situation 1, the Board found a violation not because Engineer A was actively soliciting engineering work in State E, but because the card's omissions — no mailing address, no licensure jurisdictions — left recipients unable to assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legitimate practice. The card's passive character did not excuse its informational deficiency. This resolution establishes that Qualification Transparency is lexically prior to the Non-Solicitation Instrument principle: a card may be non-soliciting in intent and still be ethically deficient in content. The practical implication is that engineers cannot invoke the informal or social nature of card distribution as a shield against disclosure obligations that attach to the card's content independently of its distribution context.
The tension between Honesty in Professional Representations and Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility — most acute in Situation 3 — was resolved by the Board through an office-licensure differentiation principle: an engineer may display the P.E. title on a card that lists an office in an unlicensed jurisdiction, provided the card explicitly identifies the jurisdiction of licensure and the engineer's actual activities in the unlicensed jurisdiction are non-engineering in character. The Board's reasoning implicitly treats explicit licensure-state notation as a sufficient disclosure mechanism to neutralize the inferential risk that recipients might assume engineering services are available from the State B office. This resolution, however, leaves a residual tension unaddressed: the Honesty in Professional Representations principle requires not merely that statements be literally accurate but that the overall impression conveyed be non-deceptive. A recipient in State B who sees a card listing a State B office and a P.E. title may reasonably infer that licensed engineering services are available locally, even if the card's fine print limits licensure to State C. The Board's finding of compliance in Situation 3 therefore implicitly prioritizes the sufficiency of explicit textual disclosure over the obligation to prevent reasonable inferential misunderstanding — a prioritization that is defensible but not self-evidently correct, and one that would collapse immediately if Engineer A were to begin performing engineering services from the State B office without updating the card.
The interaction between the Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition and the Licensure Integrity and Public Protection principle — most directly in tension in Situation 4 — was resolved by the Board through a proportionality and epistemic threshold framework: the duty to report potential violations does not override the obligation to exercise sound professional judgment about the credibility and completeness of the information underlying a complaint. Engineer D received a secondhand account from a non-engineer, concerning a card distributed in a social context, describing conduct that the Board found to be non-violating on its face. The Board's finding that Engineer D's complaint was improper synthesizes three sub-principles: (1) the Social Context Non-Violation principle, which holds that distributing a geographically accurate card in a social setting does not constitute unlicensed practice solicitation; (2) the Secondhand Information Restraint principle, which requires engineers to verify the factual basis of a complaint before filing; and (3) the Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization principle, which prohibits treating ambiguous or innocent conduct as a reportable violation. Critically, this resolution does not eliminate the duty to report genuine violations — it calibrates the epistemic threshold required before that duty activates. The Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics principle further reinforces this calibration by reminding engineers that overly aggressive complaint-filing against competitors' advertising can itself raise ethical and legal concerns. The net effect is that Licensure Integrity and Public Protection remains a paramount value, but it is operationalized through a filter of epistemic humility and proportionality that prevents it from becoming a tool for reflexive or retaliatory reporting.
Situation 4. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
The Board found that Engineer A's distribution of a State B business card at a social occasion in State C was consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, as the social context of distribution did not constitute improper solicitation or misrepresentation, and Engineer D's filing of a complaint based on secondhand information about this social context distribution was itself improper and did not reflect a genuine ethics violation by Engineer A.
Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created
Recipients hold a potentially misleading impression that Engineer A is available and authorized to provide engineering services from the State B office; risk of unlicensed practice engagement is elevated
When Engineer A distributes a card listing a State B office address while holding PE licensure only in State C, recipients receive a signal that Engineer A may be available to practice engineering in State B, where Engineer A is not licensed. This creates a materially misleading impression about Engineer A's authority to practice.
Should Engineer A distribute a business card bearing the P.E. designation at a business meeting without identifying the states of licensure or a mailing address, or must the card include sufficient jurisdictional information for recipients to assess the engineer's legal authority to practice?
Engineer A distributes a business card at a professional business meeting in State E bearing the P.E. designation but omitting both a physical mailing address and any identification of the states in which licensure is held. The question is whether this combination of omissions renders the card ethically deficient under the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception requirements.
Distribute the business card only after adding explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure, and include a mailing address, so that recipients can assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legal authority to practice.
Distribute the card as currently printed, treating it as a passive personal identification instrument rather than a solicitation, on the theory that a business card does not constitute an offer of engineering services and therefore does not trigger the full licensure-disclosure obligation.
Add a mailing address to the card to provide a geographic anchor for recipients, but omit explicit identification of licensed states on the grounds that the address itself signals the base of practice and recipients can independently verify licensure status if needed.
Should Engineer A distribute a business card listing a State E mailing address alongside the P.E. designation, relying on the explicit identification of licensed states (B, C, D) to rebut any geographic inference of State E licensure, or must the card achieve geographic alignment between the address and the states of licensure?
Engineer A distributes a business card that lists a State E mailing address alongside the P.E. designation, but explicitly identifies States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure. The card creates a potential geographic inference that Engineer A is licensed in State E, but the explicit licensure notation rebuts that inference. The question is whether explicit licensure-state disclosure is sufficient to cure the misleading geographic representation created by the address mismatch.
Distribute the card as presented, relying on the explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure to rebut any inference that State E licensure exists, on the basis that this disclosure provides recipients with the material information needed to assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legal authority.
Revise the card to list a mailing address in one of the states where licensure is held (B, C, or D) rather than State E, achieving geographic alignment between the address and the licensure jurisdictions and eliminating the need to rely on explicit disclosure to rebut the geographic inference.
Retain the State E address but add a prominent disclaimer on the card face stating that Engineer A is not licensed in State E, going beyond mere identification of licensed states to affirmatively negate the geographic inference for recipients who might not process the licensure-state listing as a sufficient rebuttal.
Should Engineer A distribute a business card listing State B offices alongside the P.E. designation while relying solely on the explicit State C-only licensure notation to prevent recipients from inferring that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, or must the card include an additional affirmative clarification that the State B office provides only non-engineering consulting?
Engineer A distributes a business card in State C that lists offices in State B and identifies licensure as held only in State C, while actually performing only non-engineering consulting services from the State B office. The card creates a potential inference that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, but the explicit State C-only licensure notation and the non-engineering character of State B activities are offered as sufficient disclosure. The question is whether the card's explicit licensure notation adequately discharges the honesty obligation, and what ongoing obligation Engineer A bears to update the card if the scope of State B services changes.
Distribute the card as presented, treating the explicit State C-only licensure notation as sufficient to discharge the honesty obligation and prevent recipients from being misled about the availability of licensed engineering services from the State B office, while maintaining a strict behavioral commitment to non-engineering consulting in State B.
Revise the card to include an affirmative notation that the State B office provides non-engineering consulting services only, eliminating the residual inferential risk that recipients might assume licensed engineering services are available from that office rather than merely mitigating it through the licensure-state disclosure.
Omit the State B office reference from the business card entirely, listing only the State C licensure and contact information, on the grounds that including a State B address alongside the P.E. designation creates an inferential risk that cannot be fully neutralized by textual disclosure alone.
Should Engineer D file a formal complaint with the State C licensure board against Engineer A based on secondhand information from a non-engineer about a business card distributed during a social visit, or must Engineer D first verify the facts and assess whether the conduct actually constitutes a licensure violation before initiating formal proceedings?
Engineer D receives secondhand information from Friend X — a non-engineer — that Engineer A distributed a business card bearing the P.E. designation and listing State B offices during a social visit to State C, where Engineer A holds no license. Engineer D files a complaint with the State C engineering licensure board. The question is whether Engineer D's complaint filing was ethically proper given that the information was secondhand, the distribution occurred in a social context, and the underlying conduct may not constitute a violation.
Refrain from filing a formal complaint and instead independently verify the circumstances of the card distribution — including the nature of the meeting, whether engineering services were solicited, and whether the card's content constitutes a licensure violation under State C law — before deciding whether a complaint is warranted.
File the licensure board complaint as submitted, treating the card's display of the P.E. designation alongside a State B address in a State C context as a facially sufficient basis for a complaint, on the grounds that the reporting obligation is triggered by the appearance of a potential violation and that the board — not Engineer D — should determine whether a violation occurred.
Contact Engineer A directly to inquire about the circumstances of the card distribution and the scope of his State C activities before deciding whether to escalate to a formal licensure board complaint, fulfilling a collegial duty of direct engagement while preserving the option to file if the inquiry reveals an actual violation.
Should Engineer A treat the antitrust and commercial free speech framework as authorizing distribution of a PE-designated business card in unlicensed jurisdictions provided the card is truthful and non-deceptive, or must Engineer A independently assess and comply with each state's registration laws governing use of the PE title and solicitation of engineering work regardless of whether the card's content is accurate?
Across all four situations, the board must determine whether the antitrust and commercial free speech framework — which limits professional code restrictions on advertising — conflicts with the jurisdiction-specific state registration law compliance obligation, and how to calibrate the threshold at which distributing a PE-designated business card in an unlicensed jurisdiction transitions from protected commercial speech into impermissible solicitation of unlicensed engineering services.
Treat state registration law compliance as a mandatory floor that the commercial free speech framework does not displace, independently assessing each state's rules governing PE title use and engineering solicitation before distributing cards in that state, and refraining from distribution in business contexts in states where such distribution would violate registration laws.
Treat the antitrust and commercial free speech framework as establishing that a truthful, non-deceptive business card — one that accurately identifies licensure jurisdictions — may be distributed in any state without independent assessment of that state's registration laws, on the grounds that the commercial free speech framework preempts code-based restrictions on truthful advertising.
Distribute PE-designated business cards in professional business contexts only in states where licensure is held, while permitting distribution in social contexts in any state, calibrating the distribution practice to the context-dependent solicitation threshold rather than applying a uniform rule across all distribution scenarios.
licensed Professional Engineer in State B only
Card could be passed to others who might misinterpret its distribution as a solicitation in State C
Third parties unaware of the social context might report the card distribution to a licensure board
Card accurately represents State B licensure information
Engaged in accepted social etiquette by sharing contact information
No deceptive representation of licensure status in State C
Distinction between social and professional contexts
Recognition that handing out a business card is not ipso facto an offer to perform engineering work
Truthfulness in advertising and self-representation
Share contact information with a personal acquaintance as a matter of social courtesy, with no intent to offer or solicit engineering services in State C
Basic awareness of licensure jurisdiction
Judgment about appropriate contexts for business card distribution
During social visit to State C (Situation 4)
During a social (non-business) visit to State C, Engineer A provides his State B business card to non-engineer Friend X. The card contains only State B information and is given in a purely social context with no intent to solicit engineering work in State C.
Distribute Card on Social Visit (Action 4) → Card Passed To Third Party (Event 4)
During a social (non-business) visit to State C, Engineer A provides his State B business card to a non-engineer acquaintance Friend X, who subsequently passes the card to Engineer D, a licensed professional in State C
Distribute Card on Social Visit (Action 4)
If Engineer A had not distributed the card during the social visit, Friend X would have had no card to pass to Engineer D; alternatively, if Friend X had not passed the card, Engineer D would not have received it and no report would have been filed
Engineer A distributing a business card during a social visit
Engineer D's status as a licensed engineer in State C capable of recognizing jurisdictional issues
Friend X being a non-engineer without the professional knowledge to assess licensure implications
Friend X's decision to share the card with Engineer D
Engineer A (primary); Friend X (secondary intervening agent)
Card distribution to Friend X + Friend X's relationship with Engineer D + Engineer D's professional knowledge = sufficient chain to produce a licensure board report
Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card
licensed Professional Engineer in State C only; offices in State B
May limit perceived availability for State B engineering work
Recipients may find the State B office / State C license combination unusual
Obligation to avoid public misunderstanding about qualifications
Obligation to be truthful and non-deceptive in professional representations
Obligation to conform to state registration laws by clearly indicating the single state of licensure
Obligation to maintain accurate marketing materials
Conformance with state registration laws and rules of practice
Upholding dignity and integrity of the profession
Accurately represent his professional credentials and office location to contacts in State C without creating confusion about where he is licensed to practice engineering
Judgment about necessary disclosures when office and licensure states differ
Knowledge of multi-state licensure conventions
Understanding of how BER interprets address-based licensure inference
During business activity in State C (Situation 3)
Engineer A hands out a business card in State C that notes his offices are in State B but that he is licensed only in State C, while he resides and performs non-engineering consulting in State B. The card accurately reflects the geographic separation between his office location and his licensure jurisdiction.
Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card (Action 3) → Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
When Engineer A distributes a card listing a State B office address while holding PE licensure only in State B to recipients in State C, the card creates a signal that Engineer A may be available for or engaged in engineering practice in State C without holding the requisite licensure there
Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card (Action 3)
If Engineer A held licensure in State C, or if the card explicitly limited services to State B only, the cross-jurisdiction practice signal would not have been created
Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
Card content implying availability for engineering services across jurisdictions
Distribution of card in State C at a business meeting
Engineer A lacking PE licensure in State C
Recipients in State C who may seek engineering services
Unlicensed status in State C + business card distribution in State C + professional meeting context = sufficient to signal potentially unauthorized cross-jurisdictional practice
licensed Professional Engineer in States B, C, D
Card clearly signals he is not licensed in State E, which may limit immediate business opportunities there
Recipients in State E may decline to engage Engineer A for State E engineering work due to lack of local licensure
Obligation to conform to the spirit and letter of state registration laws
Obligation to maintain accurate and current marketing materials
Commercial free speech exercised responsibly
Introduce himself professionally while accurately representing his licensure status to avoid misleading recipients
Judgment about adequate disclosure on business cards
Knowledge of multi-state licensure requirements
Understanding of NSPE advertising ethics
During business meeting in State E (Situation 2)
Engineer A hands out a business card at a State E business meeting that explicitly lists his physical mailing address in State E and identifies the specific states (B, C, D) in which he holds a P.E. license. This transparently communicates that he is not licensed in State E.
Distribute Fully Disclosed PE Card (Action 2) → Full Disclosure Card Received (Event 2)
Recipients at the State A professional meeting receive Engineer A's business card that explicitly lists his physical office location in State B and his PE licensure status, providing full and transparent disclosure of jurisdictional scope
Distribute Fully Disclosed PE Card (Action 2)
Without explicit listing of both PE status and State B office location, recipients would lack complete information needed to assess Engineer A's jurisdictional authority; the ethical compliance outcome would not occur
Accurate and complete information on the card regarding licensure scope
Card explicitly listing PE designation with jurisdictional information
Distribution at a professional meeting where recipients are likely to rely on card information
Explicit PE designation + jurisdictional office disclosure + professional meeting context = full and compliant disclosure
Card may be perceived as solicitation of engineering work in an unlicensed state
Omission of physical address prevents recipients from inferring licensure jurisdiction
Recipients may assume Engineer A is licensed in State E
Engaged in customary business etiquette by distributing a business card
Introduce himself professionally and facilitate business contact in State E
Judgment about what information must appear on a business card to avoid deception
Knowledge of state licensure requirements
During business meeting in State E (Situation 1)
Obligation to avoid creating public misunderstanding about qualifications
Obligation to conform to the spirit of state registration laws
Obligation to maintain accurate and up-to-date marketing materials
Engineer A hands out a business card at a State E business meeting that lists P.E. designation but omits physical address and does not identify the states in which he is licensed. This creates potential ambiguity about whether Engineer A is licensed in State E.
Distribute Unlabeled PE Business Card (Action 1) → Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1)
Engineer A's business card in Situation 1 omits PE designation entirely, creating an ambiguous representation of licensure status to recipients at a State E business meeting
Distribute Unlabeled PE Business Card (Action 1)
Had Engineer A included or explicitly excluded PE designation, no ambiguity would have arisen; recipients would have had accurate information about licensure status
Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1)
Deliberate or negligent omission of PE designation from card
Distribution in a professional business context where licensure status is material
Recipients lacking independent knowledge of Engineer A's licensure status
Omission of PE designation + professional business meeting context + recipient reliance on card for professional identification
Engineer D received Engineer A's State B business card secondhand from Friend X and brought the matter to the State C licensing board, despite the distribution having occurred in a social context and not constituting a violation.
Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint
Engineer D was constrained to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion — including independent verification of the factual basis — before bringing Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution to the State C engineering licensure board, as the complaint was based on secondhand information about conduct that did not constitute a violation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional judgment and discretion standards
the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board
Prior to filing complaint with State C engineering licensure board
Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Multi-Situation Licensure Clarity Assessment
Engineer A across all four situations needed the capability to identify and compare the specific licensing board rules of States B, C, D, and E — including recognizing when state rules on solicitation and advertising differ — and to apply the more stringent or more specific requirements of each jurisdiction to evaluate compliance of business card distribution practices.
Engineer A licensed in States B, C, and D distributes business cards in State E (Situations 1 and 2), State C (Situation 3), and State C socially (Situation 4)
Navigation of licensure and advertising rules across States B, C, D, and E in four distinct business card distribution scenarios, with varying compliance outcomes
this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state.
some states have regulations which prohibit engineers or engineering firms from seeking or performing work in a particular state unless the engineer or engineering firm is duly licensed or registered in that state.
such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice.
Engineer A Situation 1 Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness
Engineer A in Situation 1 needed the capability to apply contemporary advertising ethics standards — grounded in truthfulness and state registration conformance — rather than any outdated prohibitionist framework, recognizing that the two primary considerations are non-deception and state law compliance.
Contemporary advertising ethics analysis applied to business card distribution in State E
Failure to ensure the business card met the contemporary truthfulness and non-deception standard by omitting licensure state identification and physical address
First, a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive.
Engineer A Situation 1 Antitrust Advertising Ethics Scope Recognition
NSPE Code Antitrust Constraint Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A in Situation 1 needed the capability to recognize that while antitrust constraints temper NSPE ethics guidance on advertising, state registration laws remain fully operative and binding, such that compliance with state registration law requirements for business card content is not displaced by antitrust considerations.
Business card distributed at State E business meeting without physical address or licensure state identification
Failure to ensure the business card complied with state registration law requirements (licensure state identification, physical address) despite the antitrust-tempered advertising ethics framework
the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code, consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession.
Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card Licensure Clarity
Engineer A in Situation 1 lacked adequate exercise of business card licensure clarity capability, failing to identify states of licensure and omitting a mailing address on a PE-designated card distributed at a business meeting in State E.
Situation 1: Engineer A distributes a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E without licensure states or mailing address.
Failure to list states of licensure (B, C, D) and failure to include a mailing address on the business card distributed in State E — both identified as ethical deficiencies.
Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Assessment
Engineer A in Situation 1 needed but failed to adequately exercise the capability to recognize that distributing a PE-designated business card without a physical address or licensure state identification — even if not an offer to do work — still creates an appearance of deception about licensure jurisdiction that violates ethics obligations.
Engineer A distributed a business card at a business meeting in State E where he is not licensed, without identifying his states of licensure (B, C, D) or a physical address
Distribution of a business card at a State E business meeting that omitted physical address and licensure state identification, creating confusion about whether Engineer A was licensed in State E
Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E.
The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable.
Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Knowledge
Engineer A in Situation 1 needed capability to identify and apply the licensure disclosure rules of States B, C, D, and E when distributing a PE-designated business card at a business meeting in State E.
Situation 1: Multi-state PE distributing card in State E without required disclosures.
Failure to apply multi-jurisdiction rules requiring identification of licensure states and inclusion of a mailing address when distributing a PE card in a state where not licensed.
Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Licensure Anchoring Failure
Physical Address Licensure Jurisdiction Anchoring Capability
Engineer A in Situation 1 lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that omitting a physical address from a PE-designated business card distributed in State E creates ambiguity about licensure jurisdiction, constituting an ethical deficiency.
Business card distributed at State E business meeting lacked physical address, creating jurisdictional ambiguity about where Engineer A holds PE licensure
Failure to include a physical address on the business card distributed at the State E business meeting, leaving recipients unable to anchor the PE designation to a specific licensure jurisdiction
it is the opinion of this Board that, to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer.
Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card Licensure Clarity Compliance
Engineer A in Situation 2 demonstrated the capability to present licensure status information with sufficient clarity on a business card distributed in a state where he is not licensed, by correctly identifying the states of licensure and including a physical address.
Compliant business card distributed at State E business meeting — the ethically acceptable scenario
Distribution of a business card at a State E business meeting that correctly identified States B, C, and D as licensure states and included a State E mailing address, satisfying all clarity requirements
Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed.
Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.
Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card Licensure Clarity Compliant
Engineer A in Situation 2 demonstrated adequate business card licensure clarity capability by correctly identifying states of licensure (B, C, D) and including a mailing address on the PE-designated card distributed in State E.
Situation 2: Engineer A distributes a compliant PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E.
Compliant business card listing states of licensure and mailing address, satisfying both the licensure jurisdiction identification and mailing address inclusion obligations.
The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E.
Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Physical Address Licensure Anchoring
Engineer A in Situation 2 demonstrated the capability to correctly manage the physical address licensure anchoring effect by listing a State E residence address while explicitly identifying the states (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, thereby avoiding any deceptive implication of State E licensure.
Engineer A distributed a compliant business card at a State E business meeting that identified both the physical address and the states of licensure
Business card correctly listed State E residence address alongside explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the states of licensure, satisfying the conventional assumption management requirement
In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed.
The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there.
Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Scope Boundary Maintenance
Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Maintenance Capability
Engineer A in Situation 3 must maintain the capability to ensure that consulting services performed in State B (where not licensed as a PE) remain strictly within non-engineering scope and do not cross into engineering practice.
Situation 3: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting in State B where not licensed as a PE.
Performance of non-engineering consulting services in State B while holding PE licensure only in State C, requiring ongoing scope boundary vigilance.
Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only.
Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation
Engineer A in Situation 3 demonstrated office-licensure differentiation capability by noting on the business card that offices are in State B while licensure is held only in State C, distributed in State C.
Situation 3: Engineer A has offices in State B (unlicensed) and is licensed only in State C; distributes card in State C.
Business card explicitly differentiating State B office location from State C licensure jurisdiction, avoiding misleading implication of licensure in State B.
Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.
Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Compliance
Engineer A in Situation 3 demonstrated the capability to present licensure status information with sufficient clarity by distributing a card in State C that accurately reflected the distinction between the state of office location (State B) and the state of actual PE licensure (State C), avoiding any deceptive implication of State B licensure.
Engineer A has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; distributes card in State C accurately reflecting this distinction
Business card distributed in State C accurately reflected that offices are in State B while licensure is held in State C, satisfying the office-licensure differentiation requirement
By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice.
this Board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice.
Engineer A Situation 4 Business Card Dual-Purpose Function Recognition
Business Card Dual-Purpose Personal-Professional Function Recognition Capability
Engineer A in Situation 4 implicitly demonstrated the capability to recognize that a business card distributed in a social context serves a personal identification function rather than a business solicitation function, making the distribution ethically permissible.
Social visit to State C where Engineer A distributes his State B card to a non-engineer friend
Distribution of a business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit, consistent with the personal calling-card function of business cards rather than the business solicitation function
From a personal perspective, business cards serve the function of what were formerly known as calling cards, this purpose being to provide basic identification and contact information.
Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper
business cards today represent a customary and accepted means by which engineers introduce themselves in contexts both business and social.
Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Distribution Ethics Recognition
Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability
Engineer A in Situation 4 correctly exercised the capability to recognize that distributing a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C does not constitute a professional solicitation or ethics violation.
Engineer A, licensed only in State B, distributes his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C
Distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social (non-business) visit to State C, which the BER found to be entirely proper and not an ethics violation
the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code. Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C.
Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Self-Assessment
Engineer A in Situation 4 needed capability to recognize that distributing a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C does not constitute an ethics violation, as it is not a professional solicitation.
Situation 4: Engineer A provides his State B business card to non-engineer Friend X during a social visit to State C.
Distribution of a State B-specific, substantively accurate business card to a non-engineer acquaintance in a social (non-business) context in State C.
On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 1) during Engineer A handing out business card without physical address (Situation 1)
Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 1)
Engineer A handing out business card without physical address (Situation 1)
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 2) during Engineer A handing out business card listing licensed states and State E address (Situation 2)
Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E. The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E.
Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 2)
Engineer A handing out business card listing licensed states and State E address (Situation 2)
Engineer A handing out business card during social visit to State C before Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D
Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
Engineer A handing out business card during social visit to State C
Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D
Engineer A's social visit to State C during Engineer A providing business card to Friend X
Engineer A providing business card to Friend X
Engineer D Situation 4 Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Assessment
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Capability
Engineer D needed capability to identify and apply State C's specific misconduct reporting threshold — including whether social-context card distribution to a non-engineer meets the 'knowledge or reason to believe' standard — before filing a complaint with the State C licensure board.
Situation 4: Engineer D must apply State C's specific reporting threshold to Engineer A's social-context card distribution before filing a complaint.
Failure to assess whether Engineer A's conduct met State C's jurisdiction-specific reporting threshold before filing a formal complaint, resulting in an improper complaint filing.
Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
Engineer D Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Assessment
Engineer D needed capability to identify and compare State B's and State C's specific licensing rules to assess whether Engineer A's State B business card, distributed socially in State C, violated State C's engineering licensure requirements.
Situation 4: Engineer D must compare State B and State C licensing rules to assess whether Engineer A's social-context card distribution violated State C rules.
Failure to correctly compare State B and State C licensing rules before concluding that Engineer A's conduct constituted a reportable violation in State C.
Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Failure
Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability
Engineer D failed to exercise the capability to restrain complaint filing based on secondhand information, bringing a licensure board complaint against Engineer A based solely on information received through Friend X (a non-engineer) about a social-context business card distribution that did not constitute an ethics violation.
Engineer D received Engineer A's business card through Friend X and brought the matter to the State C licensure board without adequate basis
Filing of a complaint with the State C engineering licensure board based on secondhand information from a non-engineer friend about Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution, which the BER found to reflect a failure of appropriate judgment and discretion
the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board.
Engineer D received Engineer A's business card at a social occasion in State C and brought the matter to the State C engineering licensure board
Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Restraint
Engineer D lacked adequate secondhand information complaint filing restraint capability, filing a licensure board complaint based solely on information relayed by a non-engineer third party (Friend X) without direct knowledge or verification of the alleged conduct.
Situation 4: Engineer D acts on secondhand information from non-engineer Friend X to file a complaint against Engineer A.
Filing a State C licensure board complaint against Engineer A based entirely on Friend X's secondhand account of a social card distribution, without direct observation or independent verification.
Engineer D Situation 4 Social Context Ethics Discrimination Failure
Engineer D failed to exercise the capability to correctly distinguish between business-context and social-context business card distribution, incorrectly treating Engineer A's social-occasion card distribution as a potential ethics violation warranting a licensure board complaint.
Engineer D evaluated Engineer A's social-context card distribution as a potential ethics violation and filed a complaint with the State C licensure board
Failure to recognize that Engineer A's distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C did not constitute a professional solicitation or ethics violation, leading to an improper complaint filing
the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code.
it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board.
Engineer D Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition
Engineer D lacked adequate capability to recognize that Engineer A's social-context distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend in State C does not constitute an ethics violation warranting a licensure board complaint.
Situation 4: Engineer D receives secondhand information and files a complaint against Engineer A with the State C licensure board.
Filing a complaint with the State C engineering licensure board based on a social-context card distribution that did not constitute a professional solicitation or ethics violation.
State licensing boards and professional engineering ethics bodies
Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C
Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
Governs Situation 4: whether Engineer D had an obligation or right to report Engineer A to the State C licensing board based on second-hand knowledge of a business card distributed during a social visit, and whether such a report was ethically appropriate given the indirect and social nature of the card's distribution
Engineering Firm Marketing Material Accuracy Currency Maintenance
Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
Engineering firms and their licensed engineers must possess the capability to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure ongoing accuracy, truthfulness, and non-deception regarding qualifications and licensure status, leveraging reduced digital-age update costs to keep materials current.
General obligation applicable to all engineers and engineering firms marketing services to clients and the public
Ongoing review and updating of business cards, brochures, and websites to reflect current licensure status, qualifications, and contact information across all jurisdictions where services are marketed
engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive.
Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible.
In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced.
These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications.
State legislatures of States B, C, D, and E
State Engineering Licensure Statutes (States B, C, D, E)
Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D
Engineer A (multi-state licensure); Engineer D (reporting to State C board); State C licensing board
Establishes the legal framework defining what constitutes licensed practice in each state, the jurisdictional scope of licensure, and the authority of state licensing boards to receive and act on reports of potential violations
Legal Challenges to Professional Society Codes of Ethics (1960s–1970s)
First Amendment Professional Code Constraint
Cited as the legal backdrop that reshaped engineering advertising ethics, introducing commercial free speech and antitrust cautions that now temper ethical analysis of advertising
Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient
{'engineer_status': False, 'context_of_receipt': 'social visit', 'action_taken': 'shared card with Engineer D'}
Non-engineer who receives Engineer A's business card during a social visit in State C and subsequently shares it with Engineer D, indirectly triggering a licensing board complaint against Engineer A.
{'type': 'card_received_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}
{'type': 'card_shared_with', 'target': 'Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter'}
Social Context Business Card Recipient Non-Engineer
Friend X shares the card with Engineer D
telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C
Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D before Engineer D reporting Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C. Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
Engineer D reporting Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
Recipients now have accurate, complete information about Engineer A's licensure jurisdictions; the potential for misunderstanding about State A practice authority is substantially reduced
Recipients at the State A professional meeting receive Engineer A's business card that explicitly lists PE licensure in States B, C, and D, making Engineer A's non-licensure in State A inferrable from the disclosed information. This transparent disclosure event resolves the ambiguity present in Situation 1.
Improper Licensure Complaint Filer Engineer D Restraint
Engineer D as an improper licensure complaint filer lacked the secondhand information restraint capability needed to refrain from filing a State C licensure board complaint based solely on Friend X's indirect account of Engineer A's social-context card distribution.
Engineer D files an improper complaint with the State C licensure board based on secondhand information from Friend X.
Filing a formal licensure board complaint against Engineer A based entirely on secondhand information from a non-engineer third party, without direct knowledge or independent verification of the alleged conduct.
Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer
Engineer A transitions from unaware potential violator to subject of active regulatory investigation; professional license in State B potentially at risk through reciprocal disciplinary action; the matter is now formally in the regulatory domain
After card passed to Engineer D; Situation 4 scenario
Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C licensure board after receiving Engineer A's business card, which carries a PE designation while Engineer A is licensed only in State B and not in State C. This formal report initiates a regulatory proceeding and transforms a potential ethics concern into an active disciplinary matter.
Recipient of card holds ambiguous information about Engineer A's professional standing; potential for misunderstanding of Engineer A's authority to practice in State A is created
Engineer A's business card in Situation 1 omits PE designation entirely, creating an ambiguous representation of licensure status that neither confirms nor denies professional standing in State A. This omission becomes a materially relevant fact when Engineer A attends a professional meeting.
National Society of Professional Engineers
Primary normative authority for evaluating the ethics of engineer advertising, business card use, and licensure representation; specifically invoked for truthfulness and non-deception principles
Engineer A hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
Engineer A in all four situations; Engineer D in Situation 4
Provides the foundational ethical obligations governing honest representation of licensure status on business cards and professional materials, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive statements about qualifications
Provides normative grounding for evaluating whether Engineer A's business card representations — particularly the omission of state licensure identifiers or the listing of an address in an unlicensed state — constitute misrepresentation of professional qualifications
Were Engineer A’s actions ethical in situations (1), (2), (3), and (4)?
Does the omission of a physical mailing address on a business card constitute a material misrepresentation of qualifications under the NSPE Code, or is it better characterized as an incomplete disclosure — and does that distinction change the ethical analysis for Situation 1?
At what point does a business card transition from a passive identification instrument into an active solicitation of engineering services, and should that threshold affect whether distributing a card in an unlicensed jurisdiction constitutes a violation of state registration laws?
If Engineer A in Situation 3 were to begin performing engineering services in State B — where he holds no license — would the existing business card, which accurately describes his current non-engineering consulting role, immediately become ethically deficient, and what obligation does Engineer A have to proactively update his marketing materials before that transition occurs?
Does the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical — despite Engineer A listing a State E address without State E licensure — implicitly establish a precedent that explicit licensure disclosure can cure an otherwise misleading geographic representation, and if so, how much ambiguity can explicit disclosure legitimately offset?
Does the principle of Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics conflict with the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance obligation, such that engineers in multi-state practice may invoke commercial free speech to justify distributing business cards in unlicensed jurisdictions even when state registration laws would otherwise prohibit it?
Does the Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition invoked against Engineer D conflict with the Licensure Integrity and Public Protection principle, given that engineers have a general professional duty to report potential violations — and if so, how should the threshold of epistemic certainty required before filing a complaint be calibrated to honor both principles simultaneously?
Does the principle of Qualification Transparency — which drove the finding that Situation 1 is unethical due to omission of licensure jurisdictions — conflict with the Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument principle, which implies that a card handed out in a social or general business context carries a lower duty of comprehensive disclosure than a formal engineering proposal or advertisement?
Does the Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility principle — which validates Engineer A's Situation 3 card because he performs only non-engineering consulting in State B — conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle, insofar as displaying the 'P.E.' title on a card associated with a State B office may lead recipients to infer that licensed engineering services are available from that office, regardless of Engineer A's actual service scope?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A in Situation 1 fulfill a categorical duty of non-deception by distributing a business card that omitted both a physical mailing address and the states in which licensure was held, regardless of whether any recipient was actually misled?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical — despite Engineer A listing a State E address without State E licensure — produce better public-protection outcomes than a stricter rule requiring address-licensure geographic alignment, and does the explicit disclosure of licensed states adequately offset the inferential risk created by the address mismatch?
From a virtue ethics standpoint, does Engineer D's decision to file a licensure board complaint against Engineer A in Situation 4 — based entirely on secondhand information about a card distributed in a social context — reflect the professional virtues of prudence, fairness, and epistemic humility that the NSPE Code expects of engineers who invoke reporting obligations?
From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's duty of honesty in professional representations impose a strict obligation on Engineer A in Situation 3 to clarify on the business card that the State B office location is associated only with non-engineering consulting services, or is the card's explicit notation that licensure is held only in State C sufficient to discharge that duty when the card is distributed in State C?
Would Engineer A's Situation 1 business card have been deemed ethical if it had listed only the states of licensure without including a physical mailing address — that is, does the Board's finding of a violation rest primarily on the address omission, the licensure-state omission, or the combination of both, and would correcting only one of those deficiencies have been sufficient?
If Engineer A in Situation 2 had listed a State E address without explicitly identifying the states of licensure on the card, would the Board have reached the same conclusion as in Situation 1 — and does this counterfactual confirm that explicit licensure-state disclosure is the single most critical variable distinguishing ethical from unethical multi-state business card practice?
What if Engineer A in Situation 3 had been performing engineering services — not merely non-engineering consulting — out of the State B office while holding only a State C license: would the business card's notation of State B offices have then constituted a material misrepresentation of licensure status sufficient to render the card unethical, and how would that change the Board's analysis of the office-licensure differentiation principle?
If Engineer D in Situation 4 had personally witnessed Engineer A distributing the State B business card in State C — rather than receiving the card secondhand through Friend X — would the Board's conclusion about the propriety of Engineer D's complaint have changed, and does the social-visit context independently immunize the card distribution from ethical scrutiny regardless of how Engineer D learned of it?
licensed Professional Engineer, presumably in State C
Engineer A faces an unwarranted licensure board inquiry
Engineer A may suffer reputational harm despite having committed no ethical violation
The report may be seen as an abuse of the regulatory complaint process
Superficial compliance with duty to uphold professional standards and report potential violations
Distinction between social and professional contexts for business card distribution
Fairness and due diligence before initiating regulatory action against a colleague
Obligation to act in the public interest without causing unwarranted harm to individuals
Professional judgment and discretion in evaluating potential violations
Uphold State C engineering licensure standards by reporting what Engineer D perceives as an unlicensed solicitation of engineering work in State C
Due diligence in investigating facts before initiating regulatory action
Knowledge of State C engineering licensure laws
Professional judgment to distinguish genuine violations from contextually innocent acts
Understanding of NSPE Code provisions on reporting violations
After receiving Engineer A's card from Friend X (Situation 4)
Obligation to exercise appropriate professional judgment before making a regulatory complaint
Obligation to exercise discretion in professional dealings
Obligation to investigate the facts and context before taking action that could harm a colleague
Obligation to uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession by not making unfounded complaints
Engineer D, upon receiving Engineer A's State B business card from Friend X with the information that it was distributed in State C, decides to report Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board for allegedly practicing or soliciting without a State C license.
Engineer A may face a licensure board inquiry despite having done nothing improper
Engineer D may interpret the card distribution as an unlicensed solicitation in State C
Accuracy in representing facts to professionals who may act on them
Awareness of potential downstream harm from sharing information without full context
Inform Engineer D about Engineer A's presence and credentials, likely without understanding the regulatory implications of sharing the card in this manner
Awareness of when sharing professional credentials information may trigger regulatory consequences
Understanding of engineering licensure regulations
After receiving Engineer A's card during the social visit to State C (Situation 4)
Implicit duty not to misrepresent the context in which Engineer A's card was distributed (by framing a social exchange as potentially regulatory)
Friend X, a non-engineer, shares Engineer A's business card with Engineer D and informs Engineer D that Engineer A distributed the card while visiting State C. This act introduces the card into a professional regulatory context that Engineer A never intended.
Share Card With Engineer D (Action 5) → Licensure Board Report Filed (Event 5)
Friend X shares Engineer A's business card with Engineer D and informs Engineer D that Engineer A is not licensed in State C, directly triggering Engineer D's professional obligation to evaluate and report the potential unauthorized practice to the State C licensure board
Without Friend X sharing the card and licensure information, Engineer D would have had no basis to file a report; the report is directly traceable to this sharing action combined with Engineer D's professional judgment
Engineer D's independent judgment that a report was warranted
Engineer D's status as a licensed engineer with professional reporting obligations
Friend X possessing Engineer A's business card
Friend X's decision to share both the card and the licensure information with Engineer D
Friend X's knowledge (or belief) that Engineer A is not licensed in State C
Engineer D (report filing); Friend X (information sharing); Engineer A (root cause, card content and distribution)
Card in Engineer D's possession + knowledge of unlicensed status in State C + Engineer D's professional obligation = sufficient to produce a licensure board report
Engineer A distributed a PE-designated business card at a business meeting in State E (where not licensed) that omitted a physical address and did not identify the states of licensure (B, C, D).
Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
Engineer A's business card distributed at the State E business meeting was constrained to include a physical address and identify the states of licensure; the absence of a physical address rendered the card non-compliant with the truthfulness and non-deception requirement, as it created ambiguity about Engineer A's licensure jurisdiction.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; State engineering licensure laws
business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
At time of business card distribution at State E business meeting
The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive
Engineer A's Situation 1 business card lacked both a mailing address and licensure state identification, creating maximum ambiguity about his licensed jurisdiction at a professional business meeting.
Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from distributing a PE-designated business card at a professional business meeting without including a physical mailing address, as the absence of an address prevents recipients from identifying the geographic jurisdiction of his practice and licensure.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
At time of business meeting distribution in State E
Engineer A is not licensed in State E but distributed a PE-designated card at a professional business meeting there, potentially implying State E licensure authority.
Engineering Credential Title Jurisdictional Scope Triggering Constraint
Engineer A's use of the PE title on a business card distributed at a professional meeting in State E — where he is not licensed — triggered State E's engineering practice act requirements, constraining him to either hold State E licensure or clearly disclaim that his PE designation applies only to States B, C, and D.
State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics
Situations 1, 2, and 3 each present variations of the same core non-deception constraint: Engineer A's business card must not create false impressions about his licensure jurisdiction through omission or misleading address/office information.
Engineer A was constrained by the non-deception principle from distributing PE-designated business cards that — through omission of licensure states, inclusion of addresses in unlicensed states without clarification, or listing of offices in unlicensed states — created false impressions about the geographic scope of his licensed engineering authority.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Non-Deception Ethical Principle
Throughout all professional business card distribution activities
Engineer A's Situation 2 card listed a State E mailing address alongside explicit B/C/D licensure identification — the explicit licensure disclosure mitigates but does not fully eliminate the potential for address-implied licensure confusion.
Address-Implied Licensure Jurisdiction Non-Deception Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from listing a State E mailing address on his PE-designated business card without clearly identifying that his licensure is held only in States B, C, and D — not State E — to prevent recipients from inferring that the State E address implies State E licensure.
Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D.
Engineer A distributed a PE-designated business card listing a State E residence address but explicitly identifying States B, C, and D as the states of licensure — satisfying the non-deception requirement.
Engineer A's business card in Situation 2 satisfied the geographic clarity constraint by listing a State E residence address and explicitly identifying the out-of-state jurisdictions (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, thereby avoiding any false impression of State E licensure.
Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed
If the engineer is not licensed in the state where he/she resides (or where his/her business resides) as per the physical address, then the card should clearly indicate the state(s) in which the person is licensed
The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there
Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive
Situation 2 represents the compliant scenario where explicit licensure state identification accompanies the address, satisfying the geographic clarity requirement despite the address-licensure jurisdiction mismatch.
Engineer A satisfied the business card licensure geographic clarity constraint in Situation 2 by explicitly identifying States B, C, and D as his licensure jurisdictions on the card, even though the card also listed a State E mailing address — the explicit licensure disclosure prevents the address from creating a false impression of State E licensure.
Engineer A's card noted State B offices while identifying States B, C, D as licensure states; a business development engineer distributed the card in a state where the firm held licensure.
Engineer A's business card in Situation 3 satisfied the geographic clarity constraint by clearly differentiating the State B office location from the states of licensure (B, C, D), with no deception about the scope of licensed authority, and the business development representative's distribution was permissible because the firm held licensure in the relevant state.
Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice
At time of business card distribution by business development representative
By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice
this Board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice
A business development engineer (not personally licensed in the target state) distributed cards and solicited work on behalf of a firm that did have licensed engineers in the state.
Business Development Engineer (Situation 3)
Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure-Backed Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
The business development engineer's distribution of business cards and engagement in business development activities in the target state was permissible only because the firm represented had engineers duly licensed in that state; had the firm lacked licensed engineers in the state, such solicitation would have been prohibited as deceptive and contrary to state engineering laws.
NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering licensure and solicitation laws
During business development activities in target state
This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card
prospecting for work would not appear to satisfy the intent of the state's engineering laws and regulations and therefore would not be ethical
this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state
Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B while holding PE licensure only in State C — his practice in State B is constrained to non-engineering services to avoid unlicensed engineering practice.
Engineer A was constrained to perform only non-engineering consulting services in State B — where he is not licensed as a PE — and could not perform engineering services in State B without obtaining State B licensure, regardless of his PE status in State C.
State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2
Throughout Engineer A's residence and practice in State B
Engineer A's Situation 3 card notes State B offices but State C-only licensure — the card is distributed in State C, creating potential confusion about whether the State B office location implies State B PE licensure.
Engineer A was constrained to clearly differentiate on his business card that his offices are in State B (where he is not licensed as a PE) while his PE licensure is held only in State C, so that recipients distributing the card in State C are not misled into believing he holds State B PE licensure.
At time of business card distribution in State C
The combination of PE title and State B office notation on the card creates risk of implying State B PE licensure, which Engineer A does not hold.
Engineer A's use of the PE title on a business card noting State B offices — where he is not licensed — constrained him to clearly disclaim on the card that his PE designation applies only to State C, to prevent the PE title from implying State B engineering practice authority.
At time of business card distribution in State C and any distribution in State B
Engineer A holds PE licensure only in State C but maintains offices in State B and uses the PE title on his business card — State B's engineering practice act constrains his use of the PE title in connection with State B activities.
State Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Statutory Compliance Constraint
Engineer A was constrained by State B's engineering practice act to refrain from using the PE title in connection with any engineering services performed in State B, where he holds no PE licensure — his use of the PE title on a card noting State B offices must be accompanied by clear disclosure that the PE designation applies only to State C licensure.
State B Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; State Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Requirements
The BER's analysis of engineering business card ethics occurs within a legal framework shaped by antitrust actions and First Amendment rulings that limit how broadly professional codes can restrict engineering advertising and self-promotion.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Situation 4 analysis context)
Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
The BER's ethical analysis of Engineer A's business card distribution practices was constrained by antitrust law and First Amendment commercial free speech principles — prohibiting the BER from issuing guidance that would restrict legitimate engineering advertising and self-promotion beyond what is required to prevent actual deception or misrepresentation of licensure status.
First Amendment Commercial Free Speech Antitrust Legal Challenges; BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, 84-2
Throughout BER analysis of all four situations
Engineer D received only secondhand information from a non-engineer (Friend X) about Engineer A's business card distribution in a social context, yet filed a formal licensing board complaint without apparent independent verification.
Engineer D was constrained to independently verify the factual basis of the alleged licensure violation — including confirming that Engineer A actually solicited engineering services in State C, that the distribution was professional rather than social, and that State C's licensure rules actually prohibit the specific conduct alleged — before filing a formal complaint with the State C licensing board based solely on Friend X's secondhand account.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Epistemic Verification Standard
Prior to filing complaint with State C licensing board
Engineer D lacked full knowledge of the circumstances of Engineer A's card distribution — specifically the social context, the non-engineer recipient, and the State B-specific card content — before filing a formal complaint.
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer D was constrained from filing a formal licensure complaint against Engineer A without full knowledge of the circumstances — including the social nature of the card distribution, the non-engineer status of the recipient, and the State B-specific content of the card — as criticism and formal complaints offered without complete contextual knowledge are inherently unreliable and potentially harmful to Engineer A's professional reputation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Standard
Engineer A distributed a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C; the card was subsequently brought to the State C licensing board by Engineer D.
Business Card Non-Offer-to-Work Scope Limitation Constraint
Engineer A's distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social occasion in State C was not constrained by solicitation or licensure advertising rules, because the act of handing out a business card in a social context does not constitute an offer to do work and therefore does not trigger state solicitation prohibitions.
the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code
At time of social occasion business card distribution in State C
Engineer A gave his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C — no engineering services were solicited or offered, and the card contained only accurate State B information.
Social Context Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Constraint
Engineer A's distribution of his State B-only business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C did not violate licensure or advertising ethics constraints, because the distribution occurred in a purely social context with no solicitation of engineering services — constraining licensing boards and fellow engineers from treating such social distribution as a licensure violation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; BER Case 04-11
Situation 2 - Address-Licensure Mismatch with Explicit Licensure Disclosure
Ongoing while Engineer A resides in State E and holds licensure only in other states
Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State
Engineer A's business card in Situation 2, listing State E residence address with explicit out-of-state licensure identification
Engineer A obtains State E licensure, or relocates address to a licensed jurisdiction
Engineer A attends a business meeting in State E and distributes a card showing State E address with explicit identification of licensed states (not State E)
Situation 3 - Business Development Representative with Firm Licensure Backing
Duration of business development activities in the jurisdiction, contingent on firm maintaining licensure there
Licensed Firm Representative Business Development in Jurisdiction State
Business development engineer distributing cards in a state where the firm (but not the individual) holds licensure
Firm loses licensure in the jurisdiction, or representative ceases business development activities there
who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there
Engineering firm deploys a business development representative to solicit work in a state where the firm has licensed engineers but the representative is not personally licensed
State Engineering Licensure and Registration Laws
the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state.
Cited as the legal framework restricting engineering practice and solicitation to duly licensed persons; governs whether business card distribution constitutes an unlawful offer to perform work
State Engineering Licensing Board Rules on Solicitation
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
The Board acknowledges that engineering licensure board rules and regulations in certain states prohibit engineers or engineering firms from soliciting work unless those persons are duly licensed in those states.
Referenced as state-level regulatory rules that in certain states prohibit engineers or firms from soliciting work unless duly licensed; applied to evaluate the ethics of business development activities
State engineering licensing boards of States B, C, D, and E
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (States B, C, D, E)
Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D
Engineer D when reporting Engineer A to the State C licensing board; Engineer A in determining permissible representations
State-level regulatory rules governing how engineers may represent their licensure status in professional materials such as business cards, and the procedures by which complaints may be filed with and adjudicated by state licensing boards
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
The Board navigates this by focusing ethics guidance on the content of advertising (truthfulness, non-deception) rather than its form or frequency, which would risk antitrust entanglement
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
The BER's evaluation of engineering advertising ethics is constrained by antitrust and commercial free speech considerations arising from 1960s-1970s legal challenges to professional codes, limiting permissible advertising ethics guidance to the two primary considerations of truthfulness/non-deception and state registration law conformance.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The Board resolves the tension between commercial freedom and licensure protection by conditioning the representative's activity on firm-level licensure coverage, ensuring that business development does not outpace the firm's actual licensed capacity
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
In the counterfactual where the firm has no licensed engineers in the target state, the business development engineer is absolutely prohibited from engaging in business development solicitation activities in that state, as such conduct constitutes deception that goes beyond business card distribution and violates the intent of state engineering laws.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.81
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
The jurisdiction-specific compliance obligation is satisfied by including states of licensure on cards used in professional contexts; social-context distributions to non-engineers may fall outside the rule's scope.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
Engineer D was constrained from attributing Friend X's independent redistribution of Engineer A's business card into State C to Engineer A as a licensure violation, because Engineer A's ethical obligations attached only to his own act of distribution — which occurred in a social context to a non-engineer — and not to Friend X's subsequent independent act of sharing the card with Engineer D.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.85
Engineer A was constrained from distributing a PE-designated business card at a professional business meeting in State E without identifying the specific states (B, C, D) in which he holds licensure, as such omission creates ambiguity about the geographic scope of his licensed authority.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.84
The absence of a mailing address prevents recipients from identifying the geographic base of the engineer's practice and cross-referencing licensure status, contributing to the overall misleading character of the Situation 1 card.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
Both the mailing address omission and the state-of-licensure omission contribute to the ethics concern in Situation 1; Situation 2's compliance demonstrates that both elements are achievable.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
The obligation to disclose states of licensure outweighs practical convenience; Situation 2 demonstrates that compliance is achievable.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Because this is a business meeting context (not social), the qualification transparency obligation applies fully; the absence of licensure state identification and mailing address falls short of the transparency standard.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
The Board resolves this by treating the omission of an address as ethically impermissible regardless of intent, because it creates the conditions for public misunderstanding about licensure status
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
No tension — the engineer's affirmative disclosure satisfies both the letter and spirit of the honesty obligation
Full disclosure of states of licensure resolves the potential tension between using the PE title in an unlicensed state and the transparency obligation.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
Because the card accurately discloses the licensing limitation (licensed in State C only) and the card is distributed in State C (where licensure is held), the arrangement is compliant; the non-engineering nature of State B services removes the licensure concern.
Accurate disclosure of the single-state licensure limitation resolves any potential concern about misleading recipients regarding practice authority.
The social context and non-engineer recipient eliminate the professional reliance concern that underlies the licensure disclosure obligation; no member of the public is being misled into relying on the engineer's State C licensure status
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The mandatory reporting obligation applies only when there is actual knowledge or reasonable belief of a violation; because Situation 4 conduct is permissible, the reporting obligation is not triggered and the complaint is improper.
The Board resolves the tension in favor of no violation by emphasizing the absence of professional purpose and the non-engineer character of the recipient
The Board resolves the tension between the obligation to report genuine misconduct and the prohibition on baseless complaints by finding that Engineer D's complaint lacked the threshold predicate of actual misconduct
Applying State C's specific rules to the social-context facts of Situation 4 likely reveals no violation, making the complaint improper under the jurisdiction-specific threshold principle.
Engineer D was constrained to exercise heightened restraint before filing a licensure board complaint against Engineer A based solely on Friend X's secondhand account of a social-context business card distribution, as the secondhand nature of the information, the social context of the original distribution, and the non-engineer status of the intermediary all required independent verification before formal complaint filing.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
The accuracy obligation is not a one-time compliance check but a continuing duty that requires active monitoring and updating as circumstances change; the ease of electronic updates heightens the expectation of currency
historical era of calling cards before contemporary use of business cards
business cards serve the function of what were formerly known as calling cards, this purpose being to provide basic identification and contact information.
legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics before current tempered approach to advertising ethics
legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics
current tempered approach to advertising ethics
Engineer A presents a PE-designated business card at a business meeting in State E without identifying the states (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, potentially implying licensure in State E where none exists.
Engineer A's Situation 1 business card uses the PE designation without identifying the states of licensure or providing a mailing address, creating a potentially misleading impression that Engineer A is licensed to practice in State E where
Engineer A's Situation 1 business card omits a mailing address in addition to omitting states of licensure, compounding the misleading impression that the engineer may be available for engineering practice in State E where the card is prese
Engineer A's Situation 2 business card correctly identifies the states of licensure (B, C, D) and includes a mailing address in State E, providing recipients at the business meeting with accurate information about the geographic scope of li
Engineer A's Situation 3 business card accurately discloses that offices are in State B but licensure is in State C only, providing recipients in State C with accurate information about the geographic scope of licensure and the location of
Engineer A in Situation 3 has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; performs non-engineering consulting in State B; distributes a card in State C accurately reflecting licensure — the Board finds this ethically acceptable beca
Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B while licensed only in State C; the business card accurately reflects this arrangement by noting offices in State B and licensure in State C only, distributed in
Engineer A provides a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C; this social, non-business context means no engineering services are being solicited and no member o
Engineer A's business card content across all four situations is evaluated for whether it makes truthful and accurate representations of licensure status; Situations 2 and 3 are compliant, Situation 1 is potentially misleading by omission,
The underlying concern in all four situations is whether Engineer A's business card practices erode the integrity of the licensure system by implying engineering authority in jurisdictions where the engineer is not licensed — the principle
The Board affirms that engineers' obligations in advertising and business card use extend beyond mere legal compliance to encompass the spirit of the Code and the dignity and integrity of the profession
Engineer A's distribution of business cards across States B, C, D, and E requires compliance with the specific licensure and title-use rules of each jurisdiction; the analysis of each situation turns on the specific rules of the state where
Engineer D files a licensure board complaint against Engineer A in State C based on a social-context business card exchange with a non-engineer friend, conduct that does not constitute an ethics violation — making Engineer D's complaint its
Engineer D's complaint against Engineer A for distributing a State B business card to a non-engineer friend in a social context fails the proportionality test: the conduct does not rise to the level of misrepresentation because no professio
Engineer D must apply State C's specific licensure rules to determine whether Engineer A's conduct in Situation 4 constitutes a violation reportable to the State C board; the analysis requires examining whether State C's rules extend to soc
The Board establishes that distributing a business card in any context — business or social — does not constitute an offer to perform engineering work, because formal solicitation requires purpose-specific documents such as SOQs, proposals,
A business development engineer who is not personally licensed in a state may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development in that state, provided the employing firm has duly licensed engineers in that state who will p
The Board affirms that engineers and firms must maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — business cards, brochures, websites — to ensure ongoing accuracy about qualifications and licensure, noting that reduced electro
Engineer A's business card in Situation 1 omits a physical address, creating an unresolvable ambiguity about which state's licensure the PE designation refers to, rendering the card ethically unacceptable
The Board identifies truthfulness and non-deception as the primary ethical standard governing how engineers represent themselves through advertising and business cards, requiring that all such communications avoid misleading impressions abo
Engineer A's Situation 2 card lists a State E address but affirmatively identifies the states of actual licensure (B, C, D), successfully rebutting the conventional presumption and satisfying the honesty obligation
Engineer A distributes his State B business card during a social visit to State C to a non-engineer friend; the Board finds no ethics violation because the distribution was social, not intended as a representation of licensure in State C
Engineer D brought Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution in State C to the State C licensure board, despite the conduct being entirely proper; the Board notes this reflects a lack of appropriate judgment and discretion
The Board acknowledges that over 30 prior BER cases on advertising have been tempered by legal challenges related to commercial free speech and antitrust, requiring that contemporary advertising ethics guidance operate within those legal co
Engineer A was obligated to identify on his business card the specific states (B, C, D) in which he holds licensure when distributing a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E.
Engineer A was obligated to include a mailing address on his business card when distributing a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E, so that recipients could identify the geographic base of his practice.
Engineer A was obligated to clearly differentiate on his business card that his offices are in State B (where he is not licensed as an engineer) while his PE licensure is held only in State C — an obligation he satisfied in Situation 3.
Engineer A had no ethics obligation violated by distributing a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C, as the social context and non-engineer recipient preclude
Engineer A's distribution of his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C does not constitute an ethics violation, and Engineer A bears no obligation to refrain from such distribution in a purely socia
Engineer A was obligated to ensure that business card distribution and any associated business development activities in each state conformed to that state's registration laws and rules of practice, including not soliciting work in states w
Engineer D was obligated to exercise heightened restraint before filing a licensure board complaint against Engineer A based solely on secondhand information relayed by a non-engineer (Friend X), including verifying the facts directly and a
Engineer D was obligated to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion before bringing Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution to the State C engineering licensure board, including assessing whether the conduct actually co
Engineer D was obligated to recognize that Engineer A's distribution of a technically accurate, State B-specific business card to a non-engineer friend in a social context in State C does not constitute a reportable ethics violation, and th
Engineer D was obligated to evaluate Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct against State C's specific licensure rules — including whether social-context card distribution to a non-engineer constitutes a violation under State C statutes — before
A business development representative of an engineering firm may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development in a state where the representative is not personally licensed only if the firm itself has engineers duly li
Engineers and engineering firms are obligated to continuously maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they remain accurate, truthful, and not deceptive ab
Engineer A was obligated to include a physical address on the business card distributed at the business meeting in State E, and to identify the states (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, so that recipients would not be misled about the ge
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from presenting a PE-designated business card that omits the states of licensure and mailing address, as such omissions create a misleading impression of the scope of his licensure in a professional busin
Engineer A was obligated to ensure the business card distributed at the State E business meeting was truthful and not deceptive regarding licensure status; the omission of a physical address and states of licensure created an unacceptable a
Engineer A was obligated to include a mailing address on his PE-designated business card distributed at a business meeting in State E — an obligation he satisfied in Situation 2 by listing his State E mailing address.
Engineer A was obligated to identify on his business card the specific states (B, C, D) in which he holds licensure when distributing a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E — an obligation he satisfied in Situation 2.
Engineer A was obligated to include a physical address and to identify the states of licensure on the business card distributed in State E; Engineer A satisfied this obligation by listing a State E address and identifying States B, C, and D
Engineer A was obligated to ensure the business card accurately reflected the distinction between the state of office location (State B) and the state of licensure (State C); Engineer A satisfied this obligation by distributing a card in St
Engineer A was obligated to ensure that the consulting services he performs in State B — where he is not licensed as a PE — remain strictly non-engineering in character, consistent with the business card's representation that his PE licensu
The BER's acknowledgment that advertising ethics opinions are now tempered by antitrust and commercial free speech cautions, limiting the scope of permissible ethics guidance on advertising.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional Ethics Bodies
First Amendment commercial free speech doctrine; U.S. antitrust law; BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, 84-2
As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations
Applies to all BER advertising ethics opinions issued after the 1960s-1970s legal challenges
BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective
contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A distributed a business card at a business meeting in State E listing only name, phone, fax, and email — with no mailing address and no identification of licensure states — despite holding licensure only in States B, C, and D.
Hypothetical scenario where a business development engineer solicits work in a state where neither the engineer nor the firm holds licensure.
Business Development Engineer (Situation 3 Counterfactual — Unlicensed Firm)
During any business development activities in target state where firm is unlicensed
Engineer D's complaint was based entirely on secondhand information from a non-engineer friend, concerning conduct that occurred in a social context — multiple factors required heightened restraint and verification before formal complaint filing.
Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; Professional Reciprocity Standards
Friend X independently shared Engineer A's State B business card with Engineer D, who then reported Engineer A to the State C licensing board — the redistribution was Friend X's independent act, not Engineer A's.
Third-Party Business Card Redistribution Non-Attribution Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws
At time of Engineer D's complaint filing decision
Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument — General Principle Invocation
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
The Board establishes that distributing a business card in any context — business or social — does not constitute an offer to perform engineering work, because formal solicitation requires purpose-specific documents such as SOQs, proposals, and contracts
This principle liberates engineers from the concern that handing out a business card in a state where they are not licensed automatically constitutes unlicensed solicitation; the ethical and legal analysis must focus on whether formal solicitation instruments are being used
Business Card Non-Solicitation Character Principle
The Board resolves the tension by distinguishing the communicative act (card exchange as social/business etiquette) from the legal act (offer to perform work), reserving the latter for formal instruments
This Board does not take the position that handing out a business card, in whatever setting, is tantamount to offering to do work.
it is the opinion of this Board that the act of an engineer handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not, ipso facto, rise to the level of an offer to do work, either personally or on behalf of an engineer's firm
other documents exist expressly for the purpose of securing work, such as statements of qualifications, proposals, contracts and the like
Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
{'license_states': ['B'], 'card_distribution_state': 'C', 'card_contents': ['State B information only'], 'context': 'social visit, non-business purpose', 'recipient': 'non-engineer friend'}
Licensed only in State B; on a social (non-business) visit to State C, provides his State B business card to a non-engineer friend. The card is subsequently shared with Engineer D who reports Engineer A to the State C licensing board, raising the question of whether a social card exchange in an unlicensed state constitutes a violation.
{'type': 'card_recipient', 'target': 'Friend X'}
{'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'State C Engineering Licensure Board'}
Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X
Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
{'action_taken': 'reported Engineer A to State C licensing board', 'information_source': 'secondhand via Friend X', 'reporting_jurisdiction': 'State C'}
Licensed engineer who receives secondhand information (via Friend X) about Engineer A distributing a business card in State C while licensed only in State B, and reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board. The ethical question concerns whether Engineer D had sufficient basis to report and whether the social context of the card exchange affects the reporting obligation.
{'type': 'information_received_from', 'target': 'Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient'}
{'type': 'reported_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer
Engineering Advertising Antitrust Legal Framework
Ongoing since the legal challenges of the 1960s and 1970s established commercial free speech and antitrust constraints on professional advertising codes
All engineers evaluating advertising conduct
Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
The governing legal environment for engineering advertising ethics analysis, shaped by 1960s-1970s legal challenges to professional code restrictions
Change in governing legal doctrine (not anticipated)
Legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s establishing commercial free speech and antitrust doctrine applicable to engineering advertising
Engineering Firm Employing Licensed State Engineers
{'licensure': 'Must be duly licensed in states where business development occurs', 'obligation': 'Ensure firm-level compliance with state registration laws'}
The engineering firm that employs the business development representative and must hold valid licensure in any state where its representative conducts business development activities. The firm's licensure status is the ethical linchpin for the permissibility of the representative's marketing conduct.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer'}
provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state and who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there
it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state
Ethics Code Spirit and Letter Obligation in Advertising Context
Engineering advertising practices generally
Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
Conforming to state registration laws is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical advertising; engineers must also satisfy the spirit of the ethics code, meaning they must avoid impressions that are technically lawful but professionally misleading
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code, consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession
The higher standard operates in the space between legal compliance and full ethical compliance, requiring engineers to ask not only 'is this lawful?' but 'does this uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession?'
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Invoked Across All Situations
All four business card distribution situations
Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
The underlying concern in all four situations is whether Engineer A's business card practices erode the integrity of the licensure system by implying engineering authority in jurisdictions where the engineer is not licensed — the principle provides the normative foundation for evaluating each situation.
The licensure system's public protection function requires that PE designations on business cards not mislead recipients about the geographic scope of licensure; however, the principle must be applied proportionately and contextually, not mechanically.
The public protection rationale supports disclosure requirements in professional contexts (Situations 1, 2, 3) but does not extend to social-context distributions to non-engineers (Situation 4) where no professional reliance occurs.
Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D. Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
Ongoing Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation State
Continuous — persists as long as any marketing materials are in circulation
Clients and public receiving marketing materials
Engineers' and firms' ongoing obligation to maintain accurate, truthful, and current marketing materials including business cards, brochures, and websites
Cessation of all marketing activity (not a realistic termination condition for active practitioners)
Engineer or firm maintains any public-facing marketing or communication materials
During and after the State E business meeting where the card is distributed
Engineering Title Invocation Triggering Licensure Obligation State
Engineer A's use of 'P.E.' title in State E without State E licensure (Situation 1)
Clarification of licensure scope or cessation of card distribution in State E
The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
Engineer A invokes the 'P.E.' designation on a business card distributed in State E, a jurisdiction where he is not licensed
From distribution of the card at the State E business meeting onward
Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
Engineer A's business card listing State E address without State E licensure (Situation 2)
Card revision to clarify non-licensure in State E, or acquisition of State E licensure
The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E
Engineer A distributes a card listing a State E mailing address while licensed only in States B, C, and D — not State E
Engineer A's business card creating false inference of State E licensure through address listing (Situation 2)
Card revision or explicit clarification to recipients
Engineer A distributes a card in State E that lists a State E address but does not include State E among licensed jurisdictions, creating ambiguity about professional availability in State E
Ongoing while the card is in circulation
Engineer A's card listing State B offices while holding only State C licensure (Situation 3)
Card revision, State B licensure obtained, or explicit disclaimer added
Business card lists State B offices but identifies State C as the only licensure jurisdiction, creating inference that engineering services are available from State B without State B licensure
Ongoing while Engineer A distributes the card and maintains State B offices without State B licensure
Engineer A's use of 'P.E.' title on card noting State B offices while licensed only in State C (Situation 3)
Acquisition of State B licensure, removal of State B office reference, or cessation of engineering title use on card
Engineer A hands out his business card in State C
Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B
Engineer A's business card notes State B offices and invokes engineering credentials while Engineer A is licensed only in State C and performs non-engineering consulting in State B
From Friend X's redistribution of the card to Engineer D through licensing board resolution
Engineer A's State B-only business card appearing in State C through social redistribution (Situation 4)
Licensing board determination that social distribution without solicitation intent does not constitute licensure misrepresentation
A card containing only State B information appears in State C, creating potential ambiguity about whether Engineer A is soliciting or representing engineering credentials in State C
Situation 1 - No Physical Address Business Card Ambiguity
From distribution of the business card through any correction or replacement with an address-bearing card
Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E
Engineer A's business card lacking a physical address in Situation 1
Replacement of card with one bearing a physical address identifying licensure jurisdiction
Engineer A distributes a business card that contains no physical address, preventing recipients from inferring the jurisdiction of licensure
Situation 3 Counterfactual - Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation
Duration of solicitation activities in the jurisdiction without firm licensure
Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation State
Hypothetical business development engineer soliciting work for a firm with no licensed engineers in the target jurisdiction
Firm obtains licensure in the jurisdiction, or ceases solicitation activities
Business development representative prospects for engineering work in a jurisdiction where neither the representative nor the firm's engineers hold licensure
Situation 4 - Third-Party Social Context Business Card Redistribution
From Engineer D's submission to the State C licensure board through resolution of the board inquiry
Third-Party Business Card Redistribution in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State
Engineer A's business card distributed at a social occasion in State C and subsequently brought to the State C licensure board by Engineer D
State C licensure board resolves the matter, finding no violation
Engineer D brings Engineer A's business card (distributed socially, not professionally) to the State C engineering licensure board
Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Invoked in Business Card Context
Business card advertising practices generally
Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
The Board identifies truthfulness and non-deception as the primary ethical standard governing how engineers represent themselves through advertising and business cards, requiring that all such communications avoid misleading impressions about licensure status
In the business card context, the honesty obligation requires not merely literal accuracy but the overall impression conveyed — a card that omits address information or fails to identify licensure states may be technically incomplete rather than false, but still violates the spirit of the honesty obligation
The Board resolves the tension by focusing on deception as the operative harm: advertising is ethically permissible as long as it is truthful and non-deceptive, regardless of its commercial character
{'personal_licensure': 'Not necessarily licensed in the state where business development occurs', 'firm_licensure': 'Firm must be duly licensed in the state for conduct to be ethical', 'function': 'Business development, client outreach, card distribution'}
A representative of an engineering firm who focuses on business development and tenders business cards at business and social functions in states where the representative may not be personally licensed, but where the firm employs duly licensed engineers. The BER holds this ethical only when the firm itself is licensed in the state.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Engineering Firm with State-Licensed Engineers'}
{'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Engineering Firm with State-Licensed Engineers'}
it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state
Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Mailing Address Business Card
Situation 2: Engineer A's business card includes both the states of licensure and a mailing address in State E, fully satisfying the disclosure obligation.
Multi-State PE Business Card Mailing Address Inclusion Obligation
At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting Accurate Card Compliance
Engineer A has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; performs non-engineering consulting in State B; distributes a card in State C accurately reflecting this distinction.
Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to ensure the business card accurately reflected the distinction between the state of office location (State B) and the state of licensure (State C); Engineer A satisfied this obligation by distributing a card in State C that accurately reflected offices in State B and licensure only in State C.
At the time of distributing the business card in State C
Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethical Violation
Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
The absence of a physical address prevents recipients from applying the conventional address-licensure inference and thus prevents them from determining whether the engineer is licensed in their jurisdiction — this ambiguity itself constitutes a form of deception by omission
Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation in Multi-State Practice
to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
Situation 2 Conventional Presumption Rebuttal — Ethical Compliance
Engineer A Situation 2 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation
By affirmatively listing licensure states, the engineer provides recipients with the information needed to understand that the PE designation does not extend to State E, thereby preventing the misleading impression that would otherwise arise from the address-licensure convention
Conventional Address-Licensure Inference and Rebuttal Obligation
a conventional assumption prevails; namely, that the engineer whose name and 'P.E.' designation appears on a business card is licensed in the state indicated by the physical address on the card
Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Business Card Distribution
Situation 2: Engineer A attends a business meeting in State E and distributes a PE-designated card that correctly identifies States B, C, and D as his licensing states and includes a mailing address.
Multi-State PE Business Card Licensure Jurisdiction Identification Obligation
Engineer A Situation 2 Licensure State Identification Compliance
Engineer A distributes a business card at a business meeting in State E that identifies residence in State E and lists States B, C, and D as the states of licensure; Engineer A is not licensed in State E.
Engineer A was obligated to include a physical address and to identify the states of licensure on the business card distributed in State E; Engineer A satisfied this obligation by listing a State E address and identifying States B, C, and D as the states of licensure.
In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed
Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive
{'license_states': ['B', 'C', 'D'], 'card_distribution_state': 'E', 'card_contents': ['states of licensure listed', 'mailing address in State E'], 'potential_issue': 'Address in unlicensed state may imply licensure there'}
Licensed in States B, C, and D; hands out a business card in State E that correctly identifies the states of licensure and lists a mailing address in State E, raising the question of whether listing a State E address implies licensure in State E.
{'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State E Licensing Board'}
business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D
lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E
Engineer D Situation 4 Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Threshold Assessment
Situation 4: Engineer D applies a complaint to the State C board without demonstrating that State C's specific rules are violated by social-context card distribution of a State B card to a non-engineer.
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to evaluate Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct against State C's specific licensure rules — including whether social-context card distribution to a non-engineer constitutes a violation under State C statutes — before concluding that a reportable violation occurred.
Before filing the complaint with the State C engineering licensure board
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A Business Card Content
Business card content accuracy across all four situations
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
Engineer A's business card content across all four situations is evaluated for whether it makes truthful and accurate representations of licensure status; Situations 2 and 3 are compliant, Situation 1 is potentially misleading by omission, and Situation 4 is accurate for State B.
Honesty in professional representations requires not only the absence of false statements but also the absence of misleading omissions — a PE designation without state-of-licensure identification in a business context may be technically true but misleading.
does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
In business contexts, honesty requires affirmative disclosure of licensure jurisdiction; in social contexts with non-engineers, the accuracy of the card's content for the state of licensure satisfies the honesty requirement.
Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Invoked in Situation 4 Complaint
Assessment of whether Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct constitutes reportable misconduct
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Engineer D's complaint against Engineer A for distributing a State B business card to a non-engineer friend in a social context fails the proportionality test: the conduct does not rise to the level of misrepresentation because no professional solicitation occurred and the card was accurate for the state of licensure.
Proportionality analysis requires distinguishing between conduct that could have been clearer and conduct that affirmatively misleads; Situation 4 involves neither professional solicitation nor a misleading impression to a professional audience.
The proportionality principle limits the reporting obligation: only conduct that actually meets the threshold for misconduct triggers the duty to report; ambiguous or clearly permissible conduct does not.
From the moment Engineer A distributes the business card at the State E business meeting
Engineer A's business card distribution in State E (Situation 1)
Card revision to include licensure states or clarifying information
Engineer A hands out a business card in State E bearing 'P.E.' designation without listing a mailing address or the states in which he is licensed
Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting with Accurate Card — Ethical Compliance
Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
Engineer A in Situation 3 has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; performs non-engineering consulting in State B; distributes a card in State C accurately reflecting licensure — the Board finds this ethically acceptable because the card is accurate and the work performed in State B is non-engineering
Where an engineer's card accurately reflects licensure and the work performed in the unlicensed state is non-engineering consulting, no deception occurs and no ethics violation is present
The Board resolves any apparent tension by focusing on the accuracy of the card and the non-engineering character of the State B work, finding no deception and no violation of state registration laws
Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Invoked By Engineer A Situation 4
Business card given to Friend X during social visit to State C
Engineer A provides a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C; this social, non-business context means no engineering services are being solicited and no member of the public is being misled about licensure status for professional purposes.
The social context and non-engineer recipient distinguish this situation from professional business card distribution; the card's content is accurate for State B, and no professional solicitation is occurring in State C.
The social context and non-engineer recipient mean that the public protection rationale for licensure title restrictions does not apply; no ethics violation occurs.
Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics
Engineering advertising ethics generally
The Board acknowledges that over 30 prior BER cases on advertising have been tempered by legal challenges related to commercial free speech and antitrust, requiring that contemporary advertising ethics guidance operate within those legal constraints
Ethics opinions on advertising must be calibrated to avoid imposing restrictions that would violate antitrust law or suppress legitimate commercial speech, while still maintaining core honesty and non-deception obligations
the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations
Engineer A Situation 1 Licensure Jurisdiction Omission Business Card
Situation 1: Engineer A attends a business meeting in State E and distributes a PE-designated card that omits the states of licensure entirely.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'jurisdiction': 'State C', 'action': 'Filed complaint with State C engineering licensure board'}
Engineer D received Engineer A's business card at a social occasion in State C and brought the matter to the State C engineering licensure board, despite Engineer A's conduct being entirely proper. The BER criticized Engineer D for failing to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion.
{'type': 'complainant_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}
Improper Licensure Complaint Filing Engineer
it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Invoked By Engineer D
Assessment of whether Situation 4 conduct violates State C engineering licensure rules
Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
Engineer D must apply State C's specific licensure rules to determine whether Engineer A's conduct in Situation 4 constitutes a violation reportable to the State C board; the analysis requires examining whether State C's rules extend to social-context card distribution to non-engineers by engineers licensed in another state.
The reporting threshold is jurisdiction-specific: Engineer D must assess whether State C's rules actually prohibit the conduct before filing a complaint; a national or general standard is insufficient.
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
Marketing Communication Currency Obligation — Ongoing Maintenance
Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
The Board affirms that engineers and firms must maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — business cards, brochures, websites — to ensure ongoing accuracy about qualifications and licensure, noting that reduced electronic update costs remove the burden excuse
Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation
No significant tension — the principle reinforces the firm's affirmative duty to maintain accurate public-facing information
PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
Business card used at business meeting in State E
Practical business card design constraints
The omission of state-of-licensure identification on a PE-designated card used in a business context in an unlicensed state creates a misleading impression that the engineer is licensed in the jurisdiction of presentation.
Qualification Transparency Invoked By Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card
Business card presented at business meeting in State E
Engineer A's Situation 1 business card uses the PE designation without identifying the states of licensure or providing a mailing address, creating a potentially misleading impression that Engineer A is licensed to practice in State E where the card is presented at a business meeting.
In this context, the principle requires that PE designation on a business card used in a professional/business context be accompanied by sufficient information (states of licensure, mailing address) to prevent recipients from being misled about the geographic scope of licensure.
Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E. The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed.
Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 3 Business Card
Business card distributed in State C accurately reflecting State B offices and State C-only licensure
Engineer A's Situation 3 business card accurately discloses that offices are in State B but licensure is in State C only, providing recipients in State C with accurate information about the geographic scope of licensure and the location of business operations.
The card's explicit identification of the single state of licensure (State C) and the location of offices (State B) satisfies the qualification transparency obligation by enabling recipients to understand the engineer's licensure scope.
Engineer A Situation 1 Mailing Address Omission Business Card
Situation 1: Engineer A's business card omits both the states of licensure and any mailing address, compounding the misleading impression of the card.
{'license_states': ['C'], 'office_state': 'B', 'card_distribution_state': 'C', 'services_in_unlicensed_state': 'non-engineering consulting only'}
Has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; performs non-engineering consulting in State B; distributes card in State C accurately reflecting licensure in State C only, raising questions about the propriety of listing a State B office address while licensed only in State C.
{'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State C Licensing Board'}
Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Against Situation 4 Conduct
Filing a licensure board complaint against conduct that does not rise to the level of an ethics violation constitutes an improper use of the professional regulatory system and itself reflects a failure of professional judgment
Engineers and Firms Marketing Material Currency Maintenance Ongoing Obligation
The Board closes its opinion by affirming a general ongoing obligation for all engineers and firms to keep marketing materials current and accurate, noting that electronic tools have reduced the burden of doing so.
Engineers and Engineering Firms (general)
Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Obligation
Engineers and engineering firms are obligated to continuously maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they remain accurate, truthful, and not deceptive about qualifications and licensure status.
Ongoing; triggered whenever qualifications, licensure status, or personnel change
Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer D
Licensure board complaint filed in State C against Engineer A
Engineer D files a licensure board complaint against Engineer A in State C based on a social-context business card exchange with a non-engineer friend, conduct that does not constitute an ethics violation — making Engineer D's complaint itself an improper use of the regulatory system.
Because Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct does not violate applicable ethics rules, Engineer D's complaint is not grounded in a legitimate ethics concern; filing such a complaint may itself constitute an ethics violation by Engineer D.
From the moment Friend X shares the card with Engineer D through resolution of the licensing board complaint
Friend X's redistribution of Engineer A's State B business card to Engineer D in State C (Situation 4)
State C licensing board determination; clarification of Engineer A's non-solicitation intent
Friend X independently shares Engineer A's business card — distributed socially, not professionally — with Engineer D in State C, where Engineer A is not licensed
Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution — No Violation
Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C.
Antitrust Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics Recognition
The Board acknowledges over 30 prior BER cases on advertising and notes that legal challenges have constrained the scope of ethics code provisions on advertising, citing BER cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Engineers generally
Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation
The Board was obligated to recognize that ethics opinions on advertising are tempered by antitrust and commercial free speech considerations arising from legal challenges during the 1960s–1970s, and to frame advertising ethics analysis within those constraints while still applying the truthfulness and non-deception standards of the NSPE Code.
Throughout the Board's analysis of advertising ethics questions
Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
Business card lacking mailing address presented at business meeting in State E
Engineer A's Situation 1 business card omits a mailing address in addition to omitting states of licensure, compounding the misleading impression that the engineer may be available for engineering practice in State E where the card is presented.
Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure Prerequisite — Ethical Activity
A business development engineer who is not personally licensed in a state may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development in that state, provided the employing firm has duly licensed engineers in that state who will perform the engineering work
The ethical legitimacy of the representative's activity derives not from personal licensure but from the firm's licensure coverage; the representative is acting as a conduit for a firm that can lawfully perform the work being developed
Firm Licensure Prerequisite for Business Development Representative Activity
{'license': 'Professional Engineer in multiple states', 'situations_analyzed': ['Situation 1 - no physical address (not acceptable)', 'Situation 2 - physical address in State E with licensure states listed (acceptable)', 'Situation 3 - physical address in State D with licensure states listed (acceptable)', 'Situation 4 - social occasion in State C (acceptable)']}
Engineer A presents business cards in multiple situations across states where licensure status varies: (1) without a physical address, (2) with a physical address in State E and explicit licensure states listed, (3) with a physical address in State D and licensure states listed while attending a meeting in State E, and (4) distributing cards at a social occasion in State C where not licensed.
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer D Improper Complaint Filer'}
{'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'NSPE Board of Ethical Review'}
Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed
Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper
Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethics Violation
Engineer A distributes a business card at a business meeting in State E bearing the PE designation but omitting both a physical address and the states of licensure; Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D but not State E.
Engineer A was obligated to include a physical address on the business card distributed at the business meeting in State E, and to identify the states (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, so that recipients would not be misled about the geographic scope of the PE designation.
Engineer A Situation 1 Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Business Card
Situation 1: Engineer A's business card at a State E business meeting displays the PE designation without identifying the licensing states or a mailing address, potentially misleading recipients about the geographic scope of his licensure.
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from presenting a PE-designated business card that omits the states of licensure and mailing address, as such omissions create a misleading impression of the scope of his licensure in a professional business context.
Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Services Scope Maintenance State B
Situation 3: Engineer A performs non-engineering consulting services in State B while licensed only in State C. The business card accurately reflects this distinction, but the obligation to maintain the non-engineering character of State B services is ongoing.
Non-Engineering Expert Services Scope Maintenance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to ensure that the consulting services he performs in State B — where he is not licensed as a PE — remain strictly non-engineering in character, consistent with the business card's representation that his PE licensure is limited to State C.
Throughout the period of performing consulting services in State B
Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Business Card
Situation 3: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting in State B but is licensed only in State C. His business card correctly notes offices in State B and licensure in State C only, distributed in State C.
Multi-State PE Business Card Office-Licensure Jurisdiction Differentiation Obligation
Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition
Situation 4: Engineer A is licensed only in State B. On a social (non-business) visit to State C, he gives his State B business card to a non-engineer friend. The card is accurate for State B. No professional transaction or business solicitation is involved.
Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
Engineer A's distribution of his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C does not constitute an ethics violation, and Engineer A bears no obligation to refrain from such distribution in a purely social context where the card accurately reflects his State B licensure.
At the time of the social visit to State C
Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint
Situation 4: Engineer D receives secondhand information from Friend X that Engineer A distributed a State B business card during a social visit to State C. Without direct verification or assessment of whether the social-context distribution constitutes a violation, Engineer D files a complaint with the State C licensing board.
Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to exercise heightened restraint before filing a licensure board complaint against Engineer A based solely on secondhand information relayed by a non-engineer (Friend X), including verifying the facts directly and assessing whether the social-context card distribution actually constituted a violation of State C's licensure rules.
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Invoked By Engineer A Multi-State Card Distribution
Business card distribution across multiple states with varying licensure status
Engineer A's distribution of business cards across States B, C, D, and E requires compliance with the specific licensure and title-use rules of each jurisdiction; the analysis of each situation turns on the specific rules of the state where the card is presented and whether the card's content satisfies those rules.
Multi-state practice requires engineers to calibrate business card content to the most demanding applicable standard and to ensure compliance with each jurisdiction's specific rules about PE title use and licensure disclosure.
Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information. On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D. Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E.
Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A Situation 3
Non-engineering consulting services performed in State B by engineer licensed only in State C
Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B while licensed only in State C; the business card accurately reflects this arrangement by noting offices in State B and licensure in State C only, distributed in State C.
An engineer may perform non-engineering consulting in a state where not licensed, provided the card accurately represents the scope of licensure and does not imply engineering practice authority in the unlicensed state.
Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility in Unlicensed Jurisdiction
Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B. Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.
Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only. Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B. Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.
Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card
Engineer A's Situation 2 business card correctly identifies the states of licensure (B, C, D) and includes a mailing address in State E, providing recipients at the business meeting with accurate information about the geographic scope of licensure.
Situation 2 represents compliant conduct: the PE designation is accompanied by full disclosure of states of licensure and a mailing address, satisfying the qualification transparency obligation even when presenting in an unlicensed state.
Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Ethical Activity
The Board addresses the scenario of a business development engineer who tenders cards at business and social functions in states where the representative is not personally licensed, and establishes the firm-licensure prerequisite as the ethical boundary condition.
Business Development Marketing Engineer / Engineering Firm
Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Compliance Obligation
A business development representative of an engineering firm may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development in a state where the representative is not personally licensed only if the firm itself has engineers duly licensed in that state; if the firm is not licensed in the state, the representative must not engage in business development activities there.
Whenever business development activities are conducted in a state
{'license_states': ['B', 'C', 'D'], 'card_distribution_state': 'E', 'card_omissions': ['mailing address', 'states of licensure']}
Licensed in States B, C, and D; hands out a business card in State E indicating PE status but omitting mailing address and the states in which licensed, raising concerns about misleading representation of licensure scope.
hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
Engineer A Situation 1 Truthful Advertising Obligation Violation
Engineer A's Situation 1 business card bears the PE designation without a physical address or identification of licensing states, distributed at a business meeting in State E where Engineer A is not licensed.
Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to ensure the business card distributed at the State E business meeting was truthful and not deceptive regarding licensure status; the omission of a physical address and states of licensure created an unacceptable appearance of deception, violating this obligation.
Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution No Violation
Engineer A, licensed only in State B, provides his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social (non-business) visit to State C.
Engineer A had no ethics obligation violated by distributing a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C, as the social context and non-engineer recipient preclude any deceptive representation of licensure.
as to Situation 4, the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code
Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure
Engineer D received secondhand information (via Friend X) about Engineer A distributing a business card in State C while licensed only in State B, and brought the matter to the State C licensure board despite the conduct being entirely proper under the NSPE Code.
Engineer D was obligated to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion before bringing Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution to the State C engineering licensure board, including assessing whether the conduct actually constituted a violation; Engineer D failed this obligation by filing a complaint based on a technically compliant social-context card exchange.
At the time of filing the licensure board complaint
Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition
Situation 4: Engineer D files a State C licensure board complaint against Engineer A for distributing a State B card to a non-engineer friend socially in State C — conduct that does not constitute a professional ethics violation under the applicable principles.
Engineer D was obligated to recognize that Engineer A's distribution of a technically accurate, State B-specific business card to a non-engineer friend in a social context in State C does not constitute a reportable ethics violation, and therefore to refrain from filing a licensure board complaint on that basis.
At the time of deciding whether to file the licensure board complaint
Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
Engineer A distributes business cards across multiple states (B, C, D, E) with varying licensure status; the Board evaluates each situation against both the ethics code and applicable state registration laws.
State Registration Law Conformance in Advertising Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to ensure that business card distribution and any associated business development activities in each state conformed to that state's registration laws and rules of practice, including not soliciting work in states where neither Engineer A nor the firm is duly licensed.
Whenever business cards are distributed or business development activities are conducted in any state
this board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice