ProEthica Case 128 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.637649
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

1960s-1970s legal challenges before BER opinions 79-6 82-1 84-2
type: TemporalRelation
allen relation: before
evidence: 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.
from entity text: 1960s–1970s legal challenges
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, 84-2
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER opinions 79-6 82-1 84-2

1960s–1970s legal challenges before BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, 84-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Advertising Ethics Norms Evolved
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Current_Standards_Application_Constraint
activates constraint: Non_Misleading_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthful_Advertising_Constraint
causes state change: 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
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Apply_Current_Not_Historical_Standards_To_Present_Conduct
creates obligation: Recognize_Evolution_Of_Ethical_Norms_In_Analysis
emergency status: routine
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Historical; 1960s through 1980s, informing present analysis
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Advertising Ethics Norms Evolved (Event 6) → Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1) and Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: 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
cause: Advertising Ethics Norms Evolved (Event 6)
counterfactual: 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
effect: Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1) and Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
necessary factors: BER opinions establishing new standards for permissible professional advertising
necessary factors: Engineer A operating during or after the transitional period when old and new norms coexisted
necessary factors: Lack of clear, universally adopted standards across all states during the transitional period
necessary factors: Prior restrictive advertising norms that were subsequently challenged and relaxed
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: NSPE and State Licensure Boards (institutional responsibility for norm clarity); Engineer A (individual responsibility to stay current with evolving standards)
sufficient factors: 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
within agent control: false
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

AllEngineers-Advertising-StateRegistrationLaw-Conformance
type: AdvertisingStateRegistrationLawConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER's identification of state registration law conformance as one of the two primary considerations governing engineering advertising ethics.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineers and Engineering Firms (General)
constraintclass: Advertising State Registration Law Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering registration laws and rules of practice
sourcetext: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
temporalscope: Applies to all advertising activities in all jurisdictions
textreferences: 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
textreferences: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
textreferences: the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code
textreferences: this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.665700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

AllEngineers-MarketingMaterial-AccuracyCurrency-Ongoing
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineers and Engineering Firms (General)
constraintclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Ongoing — applies continuously throughout the engineer's or firm's practice
textreferences: Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible
textreferences: In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced
textreferences: These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.665497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Application
type: AdvertisingEthicsHistoricalEvolutionAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER framing of the analytical approach to business card ethics across all four situations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.670502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER Advertising Ethics Precedent Corpus Navigation for Business Card Analysis
type: AdvertisingEthicsBERPrecedentCorpusNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advertising Ethics BER Precedent Corpus Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER analysis of business card distribution ethics across four situations involving Engineer A
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations.
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.670270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER_Case_79-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 79-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as incorporating the perspective of commercial free speech and antitrust considerations into engineering advertising ethics
version: 1979
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.644566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER_Case_82-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 82-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as incorporating the perspective of commercial free speech and antitrust considerations into engineering advertising ethics
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.644849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER_Case_84-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 84-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as incorporating the perspective of commercial free speech and antitrust considerations into engineering advertising ethics
version: 1984
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.645026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER_Consolidated_Reference_Table
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: BER Consolidated Reference Table
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations
textreferences: the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited to demonstrate the breadth of prior BER advertising opinions; identifies over 30 previous cases dealing with advertising considerations
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.644340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER case number 79-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER case number 82-1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER case number 84-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 before present BER opinion analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective [on commercial free speech and antitrust].
from entity text: BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: present BER opinion analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: present BER opinion analysis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business_Card_Licensure_Representation_Standard
type: BusinessCardLicensureRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
sourcetext: business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.645803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business_Card_Licensure_Representation_Standard_Instance
type: BusinessCardLicensureRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies and state licensing boards
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
sourcetext: business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
usedby: Engineer A across all four situations; Engineer D in Situation 4
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.639006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Development Representative Business Card Clarity
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Business development representative distributing PE-designated cards at business meetings in multiple states.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to distribute PE-designated cards that correctly identify licensure states and include a mailing address when conducting business development activities across multiple states.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.654248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Development Representative Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Recognition
type: BusinessCardOffer-to-WorkBoundaryDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Business development representative operating in states where the firm may or may not have licensed engineers
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Correct assessment of when business card distribution constitutes permissible business etiquette versus when broader business development activities without firm licensure constitute impermissible solicitation
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Business Development Representative
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.669673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Verification
type: BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirmLicensurePrerequisiteVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Business development representative tendering cards at business and social functions in states where the representative may not be personally licensed
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Business Development Representative
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.669408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Development Representative Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Compliance
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Business development representative distributing cards in states where licensure status varies.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Need to comply with varying state rules when distributing PE-designated business cards at business meetings across States B, C, D, and E.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.654072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Card Passed To Third Party
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Jurisdictional_Practice_Limitation_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthful_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: 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
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_D_Consider_Reporting_Obligation
creates obligation: Engineer_D_Evaluate_Whether_Violation_Exists
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A's social visit; Situation 4 scenario
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: medium
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Case 128 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 6
total elements: 12
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

CausalLink_Distribute Card on Social Visi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

CausalLink_Distribute Cross-State Jurisdi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

CausalLink_Distribute Fully Disclosed PE
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

CausalLink_Distribute Unlabeled PE Busine
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

CausalLink_Report Engineer A to Licensure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

CausalLink_Share Card With Engineer D
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
cited provision5: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Situation 1. Engineer A's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: III.8.a.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
cited provision4: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
cited provision5: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
cited provision5: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Situation 2. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: III.8.a.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: III.8.a.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: III.3.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.669930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: III.3.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: III.8.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: III.3.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
cited provision5: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: Situation 3. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.670947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 303
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Conclusion_4
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 303
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
cited provision5: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 4
conclusion text: Situation 4. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Jurisdictional_Practice_Limitation_Constraint
activates constraint: Misleading_Advertising_Prohibition
activates constraint: Truthful_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: 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
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Avoid_Implying_Availability_To_Practice_Where_Unlicensed
creates obligation: Clarify_Jurisdictional_Limitations_On_Card
creates obligation: Obtain_Licensure_In_State_B_If_Practicing_There
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Present analysis; Situation 3 scenario
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A (Situation 1)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A (Situation 2)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A (Situation 3)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer D (Situation 4)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A (Multi-State Practice)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Card on Social Visit
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer in State B only
foreseen unintended effects: Card could be passed to others who might misinterpret its distribution as a solicitation in State C
foreseen unintended effects: Third parties unaware of the social context might report the card distribution to a licensure board
fulfills obligation text: Card accurately represents State B licensure information
fulfills obligation text: Engaged in accepted social etiquette by sharing contact information
fulfills obligation text: No deceptive representation of licensure status in State C
guided by principle text: Distinction between social and professional contexts
guided by principle text: Recognition that handing out a business card is not ipso facto an offer to perform engineering work
guided by principle text: Truthfulness in advertising and self-representation
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: 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
requires capability text: Basic awareness of licensure jurisdiction
requires capability text: Judgment about appropriate contexts for business card distribution
temporal marker: During social visit to State C (Situation 4)
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Card on Social Visit (Action 4) → Card Passed To Third Party (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: 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
cause: Distribute Card on Social Visit (Action 4)
counterfactual: 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
effect: Card Passed To Third Party (Event 4)
necessary factors: Engineer A distributing a business card during a social visit
necessary factors: Engineer D's status as a licensed engineer in State C capable of recognizing jurisdictional issues
necessary factors: Friend X being a non-engineer without the professional knowledge to assess licensure implications
necessary factors: Friend X's decision to share the card with Engineer D
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); Friend X (secondary intervening agent)
sufficient factors: 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
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer in State C only; offices in State B
foreseen unintended effects: May limit perceived availability for State B engineering work
foreseen unintended effects: Recipients may find the State B office / State C license combination unusual
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to avoid public misunderstanding about qualifications
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be truthful and non-deceptive in professional representations
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to conform to state registration laws by clearly indicating the single state of licensure
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to maintain accurate marketing materials
guided by principle text: Conformance with state registration laws and rules of practice
guided by principle text: Truthfulness in advertising and self-representation
guided by principle text: Upholding dignity and integrity of the profession
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Accurately represent his professional credentials and office location to contacts in State C without creating confusion about where he is licensed to practice engineering
requires capability text: Judgment about necessary disclosures when office and licensure states differ
requires capability text: Knowledge of multi-state licensure conventions
requires capability text: Understanding of how BER interprets address-based licensure inference
temporal marker: During business activity in State C (Situation 3)
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card (Action 3) → Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: 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
cause: Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card (Action 3)
counterfactual: 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
effect: Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)
necessary factors: Card content implying availability for engineering services across jurisdictions
necessary factors: Distribution of card in State C at a business meeting
necessary factors: Engineer A lacking PE licensure in State C
necessary factors: Recipients in State C who may seek engineering services
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Unlicensed status in State C + business card distribution in State C + professional meeting context = sufficient to signal potentially unauthorized cross-jurisdictional practice
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Fully Disclosed PE Card
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer in States B, C, D
foreseen unintended effects: Card clearly signals he is not licensed in State E, which may limit immediate business opportunities there
foreseen unintended effects: Recipients in State E may decline to engage Engineer A for State E engineering work due to lack of local licensure
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to avoid public misunderstanding about qualifications
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be truthful and non-deceptive in professional representations
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to conform to the spirit and letter of state registration laws
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to maintain accurate and current marketing materials
guided by principle text: Commercial free speech exercised responsibly
guided by principle text: Conformance with state registration laws and rules of practice
guided by principle text: Truthfulness in advertising and self-representation
guided by principle text: Upholding dignity and integrity of the profession
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Introduce himself professionally while accurately representing his licensure status to avoid misleading recipients
requires capability text: Judgment about adequate disclosure on business cards
requires capability text: Knowledge of multi-state licensure requirements
requires capability text: Understanding of NSPE advertising ethics
temporal marker: During business meeting in State E (Situation 2)
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Fully Disclosed PE Card (Action 2) → Full Disclosure Card Received (Event 2)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: 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
cause: Distribute Fully Disclosed PE Card (Action 2)
counterfactual: 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
effect: Full Disclosure Card Received (Event 2)
necessary factors: Accurate and complete information on the card regarding licensure scope
necessary factors: Card explicitly listing PE designation with jurisdictional information
necessary factors: Distribution at a professional meeting where recipients are likely to rely on card information
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Explicit PE designation + jurisdictional office disclosure + professional meeting context = full and compliant disclosure
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Unlabeled PE Business Card
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer in States B, C, D
foreseen unintended effects: Card may be perceived as solicitation of engineering work in an unlicensed state
foreseen unintended effects: Omission of physical address prevents recipients from inferring licensure jurisdiction
foreseen unintended effects: Recipients may assume Engineer A is licensed in State E
fulfills obligation text: Engaged in customary business etiquette by distributing a business card
guided by principle text: Conformance with state registration laws and rules of practice
guided by principle text: Truthfulness in advertising and self-representation
guided by principle text: Upholding dignity and integrity of the profession
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Introduce himself professionally and facilitate business contact in State E
requires capability text: Judgment about what information must appear on a business card to avoid deception
requires capability text: Knowledge of state licensure requirements
requires capability text: Understanding of NSPE advertising ethics
temporal marker: During business meeting in State E (Situation 1)
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid creating public misunderstanding about qualifications
violates obligation text: Obligation to be truthful and non-deceptive in professional representations
violates obligation text: Obligation to conform to the spirit of state registration laws
violates obligation text: Obligation to maintain accurate and up-to-date marketing materials
within competence: true
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Distribute Unlabeled PE Business Card (Action 1) → Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: 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
cause: Distribute Unlabeled PE Business Card (Action 1)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A included or explicitly excluded PE designation, no ambiguity would have arisen; recipients would have had accurate information about licensure status
effect: Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1)
necessary factors: Deliberate or negligent omission of PE designation from card
necessary factors: Distribution in a professional business context where licensure status is material
necessary factors: Recipients lacking independent knowledge of Engineer A's licensure status
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Omission of PE designation + professional business meeting context + recipient reliance on card for professional identification
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

EngineerD-Sit4-Secondhand-Complaint-Restraint
type: EpistemicVerificationBeforeCompetitorRegulatoryViolationReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer D (Situation 4)
constraintclass: Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional judgment and discretion standards
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Prior to filing complaint with State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.665189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Multi-Situation Licensure Clarity Assessment
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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)
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Navigation of licensure and advertising rules across States B, C, D, and E in four distinct business card distribution scenarios, with varying compliance outcomes
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (all situations)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice.
textreferences: this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.670759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness
type: AdvertisingEthicsHistoricalEvolutionAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Contemporary advertising ethics analysis applied to business card distribution in State E
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Failure to ensure the business card met the contemporary truthfulness and non-deception standard by omitting licensure state identification and physical address
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
textreferences: First, a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.666716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Antitrust Advertising Ethics Scope Recognition
type: NSPECodeAntitrustConstraintScopeBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Antitrust Constraint Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Business card distributed at State E business meeting without physical address or licensure state identification
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Failure to ensure the business card complied with state registration law requirements (licensure state identification, physical address) despite the antitrust-tempered advertising ethics framework
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card Licensure Clarity
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 1: Engineer A distributes a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E without licensure states or mailing address.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.652437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Assessment
type: BusinessCardOffer-to-WorkBoundaryDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.666218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Knowledge
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 1: Multi-state PE distributing card in State E without required disclosures.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 1)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.652606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Licensure Anchoring Failure
type: PhysicalAddressLicensureJurisdictionAnchoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Physical Address Licensure Jurisdiction Anchoring Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Business card distributed at State E business meeting lacked physical address, creating jurisdictional ambiguity about where Engineer A holds PE licensure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.666482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card Licensure Clarity Compliance
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Compliant business card distributed at State E business meeting — the ethically acceptable scenario
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 2)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.667189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card Licensure Clarity Compliant
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 2: Engineer A distributes a compliant PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Compliant business card listing states of licensure and mailing address, satisfying both the licensure jurisdiction identification and mailing address inclusion obligations.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 2)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.652793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Physical Address Licensure Anchoring
type: PhysicalAddressLicensureJurisdictionAnchoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Physical Address Licensure Jurisdiction Anchoring Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A distributed a compliant business card at a State E business meeting that identified both the physical address and the states of licensure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 2)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there.
textreferences: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.666958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Scope Boundary Maintenance
type: Non-EngineeringExpertScopeBoundaryMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 3: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting in State B where not licensed as a PE.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Performance of non-engineering consulting services in State B while holding PE licensure only in State C, requiring ongoing scope boundary vigilance.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 3)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.667679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 3: Engineer A has offices in State B (unlicensed) and is licensed only in State C; distributes card in State C.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Business card explicitly differentiating State B office location from State C licensure jurisdiction, avoiding misleading implication of licensure in State B.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 3)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.652980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Compliance
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; distributes card in State C accurately reflecting this distinction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 3)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice.
textreferences: By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.667445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 4 Business Card Dual-Purpose Function Recognition
type: BusinessCardDual-PurposePersonal-ProfessionalFunctionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Dual-Purpose Personal-Professional Function Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Social visit to State C where Engineer A distributes his State B card to a non-engineer friend
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 4)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: business cards today represent a customary and accepted means by which engineers introduce themselves in contexts both business and social.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.668203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Distribution Ethics Recognition
type: SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 4)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.667947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Self-Assessment
type: SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 4: Engineer A provides his State B business card to non-engineer Friend X during a social visit to State C.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Distribution of a State B-specific, substantively accurate business card to a non-engineer acquaintance in a social (non-business) context in State C.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Situation 4)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.653124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 1) during Engineer A handing out business card without physical address (Situation 1)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
from entity text: Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 1)
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A handing out business card without physical address (Situation 1)
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A handing out business card without physi
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

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)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: 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.
from entity text: Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 2)
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A handing out business card listing licensed states and State E address (Situation 2)
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A handing out business card listing licen
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A handing out business card during social visit to State C before Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
from entity text: Engineer A handing out business card during social visit to State C
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A's social visit to State C during Engineer A providing business card to Friend X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
from entity text: Engineer A's social visit to State C
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A providing business card to Friend X
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A providing business card to Friend X
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Assessment
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 4: Engineer D must apply State C's specific reporting threshold to Engineer A's social-context card distribution before filing a complaint.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D (Situation 4)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.653768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Assessment
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D (Situation 4)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.653906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Failure
type: SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer D received Engineer A's business card through Friend X and brought the matter to the State C licensure board without adequate basis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.668584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Restraint
type: SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 4: Engineer D acts on secondhand information from non-engineer Friend X to file a complaint against Engineer A.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D (Situation 4)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.653625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Social Context Ethics Discrimination Failure
type: SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code.
textreferences: it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.669056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition
type: SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Situation 4: Engineer D receives secondhand information and files a complaint against Engineer A with the State C licensure board.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D (Situation 4)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.653266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer_Reporting_Obligation_to_Licensing_Board_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerReportingObligationtoLicensingBoardStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: State licensing boards and professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C
usedby: Engineer D in Situation 4
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.639775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineering Firm Marketing Material Accuracy Currency Maintenance
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: General obligation applicable to all engineers and engineering firms marketing services to clients and the public
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineering Firm and Licensed Engineers
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible.
textreferences: In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced.
textreferences: These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.669966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineering_Licensure_Law_Multi_State
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State legislatures of States B, C, D, and E
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensure Statutes (States B, C, D, E)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State C only
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
usedby: Engineer A (multi-state licensure); Engineer D (reporting to State C board); State C licensing board
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.639240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

First_Amendment_Commercial_Free_Speech_Antitrust_Legal_Challenges
type: FirstAmendmentProfessionalCodeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: U.S. Courts / Department of Justice
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Legal Challenges to Professional Society Codes of Ethics (1960s–1970s)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: First Amendment Professional Code Constraint
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as the legal backdrop that reshaped engineering advertising ethics, introducing commercial free speech and antitrust cautions that now temper ethical analysis of advertising
version: 1960s–1970s era rulings
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.645359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient
type: SocialContextBusinessCardRecipientNon-Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'engineer_status': False, 'context_of_receipt': 'social visit', 'action_taken': 'shared card with Engineer D'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'card_received_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}
relationships: {'type': 'card_shared_with', 'target': 'Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Social Context Business Card Recipient Non-Engineer
sourcetext: non-engineer Friend X
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D
textreferences: non-engineer Friend X
textreferences: telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.641862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D before Engineer D reporting Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: 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.
from entity text: Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer D reporting Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer D reporting Engineer A to the State C eng
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Full Disclosure Card Received
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Truthful_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: Recipients now have accurate, complete information about Engineer A's licensure jurisdictions; the potential for misunderstanding about State A practice authority is substantially reduced
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Maintain_Accuracy_Of_All_Future_Cards
creates obligation: Update_Card_If_Licensure_Status_Changes
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Present analysis; Situation 2 scenario
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: low
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

I.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

III.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.666567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Improper Licensure Complaint Filer Engineer D Restraint
type: SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer D files an improper complaint with the State C licensure board based on secondhand information from Friend X.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.654388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Licensure Board Report Filed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Jurisdictional_Practice_Limitation_Constraint
activates constraint: Licensee_Cooperation_With_Board_Constraint
activates constraint: Regulatory_Investigation_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthful_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: 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
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Cease_Potentially_Violating_Conduct_During_Investigation
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Cooperate_With_Regulatory_Inquiry
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Respond_To_Board_Investigation
creates obligation: State_C_Board_Conduct_Fair_Investigation
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After card passed to Engineer D; Situation 4 scenario
temporal sequence: 12
urgency level: high
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Misleading_Omission_Prohibition
activates constraint: Truthful_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: 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
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Avoid_Creating_False_Impression_Of_Competence
creates obligation: Clarify_Licensure_Status_If_Soliciting
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Present analysis; Situation 1 scenario
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: low
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Advertising
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.
textreferences: the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Primary normative authority for evaluating the ethics of engineer advertising, business card use, and licensure representation; specifically invoked for truthfulness and non-deception principles
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.644121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Business_Card
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: Engineer A hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
usedby: Engineer A in all four situations; Engineer D in Situation 4
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.638799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Qualification_Representation_Standard_Instance
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
textreferences: 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
textreferences: business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
usedby: Engineer A in all four situations
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.640023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Were Engineer A’s actions ethical in situations (1), (2), (3), and (4)?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.667999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.668057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Report Engineer A to Licensure Board
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer, presumably in State C
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A faces an unwarranted licensure board inquiry
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A may suffer reputational harm despite having committed no ethical violation
foreseen unintended effects: The report may be seen as an abuse of the regulatory complaint process
fulfills obligation text: Superficial compliance with duty to uphold professional standards and report potential violations
guided by principle text: Distinction between social and professional contexts for business card distribution
guided by principle text: Fairness and due diligence before initiating regulatory action against a colleague
guided by principle text: Obligation to act in the public interest without causing unwarranted harm to individuals
guided by principle text: Professional judgment and discretion in evaluating potential violations
has agent: Engineer D
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Uphold State C engineering licensure standards by reporting what Engineer D perceives as an unlicensed solicitation of engineering work in State C
requires capability text: Due diligence in investigating facts before initiating regulatory action
requires capability text: Knowledge of State C engineering licensure laws
requires capability text: Professional judgment to distinguish genuine violations from contextually innocent acts
requires capability text: Understanding of NSPE Code provisions on reporting violations
temporal marker: After receiving Engineer A's card from Friend X (Situation 4)
temporal sequence: 11
violates obligation text: Obligation to exercise appropriate professional judgment before making a regulatory complaint
violates obligation text: Obligation to exercise discretion in professional dealings
violates obligation text: Obligation to investigate the facts and context before taking action that could harm a colleague
violates obligation text: Obligation to uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession by not making unfounded complaints
within competence: true
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.671980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_30
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.673389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:30:39.672227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Share Card With Engineer D
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: non-engineer acquaintance of Engineer A
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A may face a licensure board inquiry despite having done nothing improper
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer D may interpret the card distribution as an unlicensed solicitation in State C
guided by principle text: Accuracy in representing facts to professionals who may act on them
guided by principle text: Awareness of potential downstream harm from sharing information without full context
has agent: Friend X
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Inform Engineer D about Engineer A's presence and credentials, likely without understanding the regulatory implications of sharing the card in this manner
requires capability text: Awareness of when sharing professional credentials information may trigger regulatory consequences
requires capability text: Understanding of engineering licensure regulations
temporal marker: After receiving Engineer A's card during the social visit to State C (Situation 4)
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Implicit duty not to misrepresent the context in which Engineer A's card was distributed (by framing a social exchange as potentially regulatory)
within competence: false
comment: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.671375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Share Card With Engineer D (Action 5) → Licensure Board Report Filed (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: 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
cause: Share Card With Engineer D (Action 5)
counterfactual: 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
effect: Licensure Board Report Filed (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer D's independent judgment that a report was warranted
necessary factors: Engineer D's status as a licensed engineer with professional reporting obligations
necessary factors: Friend X possessing Engineer A's business card
necessary factors: Friend X's decision to share both the card and the licensure information with Engineer D
necessary factors: Friend X's knowledge (or belief) that Engineer A is not licensed in State C
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer D (report filing); Friend X (information sharing); Engineer A (root cause, card content and distribution)
sufficient factors: 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
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-Truthfulness-Constraint
type: BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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).
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 1)
constraintclass: Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; State engineering licensure laws
sourcetext: business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
temporalscope: At time of business card distribution at State E business meeting
textreferences: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
textreferences: a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive
textreferences: business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.663525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit1-BusinessCard-NoPhysicalAddress-Constraint
type: BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 1)
constraintclass: Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of business meeting distribution in State E
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.654706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit1-PE-Title-Unlicensed-StateE-Constraint
type: EngineeringCredentialTitleJurisdictionalScopeTriggeringConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 1)
constraintclass: Engineering Credential Title Jurisdictional Scope Triggering Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
temporalscope: At time of business meeting distribution in State E
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.654854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit1-Sit2-Sit3-QualificationsNonMisrepresentation-Constraint
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situations 1, 2, and 3)
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Non-Deception Ethical Principle
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all professional business card distribution activities
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.656916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit2-AddressLicensureMismatch-Constraint
type: Address-ImpliedLicensureJurisdictionNon-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 2)
constraintclass: Address-Implied Licensure Jurisdiction Non-Deception Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D.
temporalscope: At time of business meeting distribution in State E
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.655033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit2-BusinessCard-AddressLicensureDisclosure-Compliant
type: BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 2)
constraintclass: Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At time of business card distribution at State E business meeting
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there
textreferences: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.663796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit2-ExplicitLicensureDisclosure-Mitigating-Constraint
type: BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 2)
constraintclass: Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of business meeting distribution in State E
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.655198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-BusinessCard-OfficeLicensureDifferentiation-Compliant
type: BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 3)
constraintclass: Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11
sourcetext: Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice
temporalscope: At time of business card distribution by business development representative
textreferences: By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice
textreferences: Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.664071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-BusinessDevelopmentRep-FirmLicensureBacked-Permissible
type: BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirm-Licensure-BackedSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Business Development Engineer (Situation 3)
constraintclass: Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure-Backed Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering licensure and solicitation laws
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: During business development activities in target state
textreferences: This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card
textreferences: 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
textreferences: prospecting for work would not appear to satisfy the intent of the state's engineering laws and regulations and therefore would not be ethical
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.664683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-NonEngineeringServices-StateB-Scope-Constraint
type: ScopeofPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 3)
constraintclass: Scope of Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2
sourcetext: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's residence and practice in State B
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.655549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-OfficeLicensureDifferentiation-Constraint
type: BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 3)
constraintclass: Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of business card distribution in State C
textreferences: Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.655382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-PE-Title-StateB-NonEngineering-Constraint
type: EngineeringCredentialTitleJurisdictionalScopeTriggeringConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 3)
constraintclass: Engineering Credential Title Jurisdictional Scope Triggering Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of business card distribution in State C and any distribution in State B
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.655726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-StateB-NonEngineering-LicensureCompliance-Constraint
type: StateLicensingActEngineeringTitleUseStatutoryComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 3)
constraintclass: State Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Statutory Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State B Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; State Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Requirements
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's residence and practice in State B
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.657078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-AntitrustContext-AdvertisingEthics-Constraint
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedProfessionalCodeGuidanceProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Situation 4 analysis context)
constraintclass: Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: First Amendment Commercial Free Speech Antitrust Legal Challenges; BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, 84-2
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
temporalscope: Throughout BER analysis of all four situations
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.656764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-EngineerD-EpistemicVerification-Constraint
type: EpistemicVerificationBeforeCompetitorRegulatoryViolationReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer D (Situation 4)
constraintclass: Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Epistemic Verification Standard
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
temporalscope: Prior to filing complaint with State C licensing board
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.656276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-EngineerD-IncompleteCritique-Constraint
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer D (Situation 4)
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Standard
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
temporalscope: Prior to filing complaint with State C licensing board
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.656616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-SocialContext-BusinessCard-NoViolation
type: BusinessCardNon-Offer-to-WorkScopeLimitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 4)
constraintclass: Business Card Non-Offer-to-Work Scope Limitation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11
sourcetext: the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code
temporalscope: At time of social occasion business card distribution in State C
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.664357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-SocialContext-NonViolation-Constraint
type: SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 4)
constraintclass: Social Context Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; BER Case 04-11
sourcetext: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
temporalscope: At time of social visit to State C
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.655903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 2 - Address-Licensure Mismatch with Explicit Licensure Disclosure
type: Address-LicensureJurisdictionMismatchState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing while Engineer A resides in State E and holds licensure only in other states
affectedparties: Business meeting attendees in State E
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State E engineering licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State
subject: Engineer A's business card in Situation 2, listing State E residence address with explicit out-of-state licensure identification
terminatedby: Engineer A obtains State E licensure, or relocates address to a licensed jurisdiction
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there
textreferences: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive
triggeringevent: 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)
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.646580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 3 - Business Development Representative with Firm Licensure Backing
type: LicensedFirmRepresentativeBusinessDevelopmentinJurisdictionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Duration of business development activities in the jurisdiction, contingent on firm maintaining licensure there
affectedparties: Business development engineer
affectedparties: Engineering firm
affectedparties: Prospective clients in the jurisdiction
affectedparties: State licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Licensed Firm Representative Business Development in Jurisdiction State
subject: Business development engineer distributing cards in a state where the firm (but not the individual) holds licensure
terminatedby: Firm loses licensure in the jurisdiction, or representative ceases business development activities there
textreferences: 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
textreferences: who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.647359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

State_Engineering_Licensure_Registration_Laws
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: State legislatures and licensing boards
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensure and Registration Laws
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice.
textreferences: the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: 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
version: Varies by state
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.645531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

State_Licensing_Board_Rules_Solicitation
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State engineering licensing boards
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensing Board Rules on Solicitation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: 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
version: Varies by state
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.646022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

State_Licensing_Board_Rules_of_Professional_Conduct_Instance
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: State engineering licensing boards of States B, C, D, and E
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (States B, C, D, E)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
usedby: Engineer D when reporting Engineer A to the State C licensing board; Engineer A in determining permissible representations
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.639523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662842+00:00
value: 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
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662629+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.660899+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662450+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.81
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661694+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662992+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.663096+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662097+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662165+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661958+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662039+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.660813+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661478+00:00
value: The obligation to disclose states of licensure outweighs practical convenience; Situation 2 demonstrates that compliance is achievable.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662909+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661895+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.660701+00:00
value: 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 tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661829+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661414+00:00
value: 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 tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662561+00:00
value: No tension — the engineer's affirmative disclosure satisfies both the letter and spirit of the honesty obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662507+00:00
value: Full disclosure of states of licensure resolves the potential tension between using the PE title in an unlicensed state and the transparency obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661335+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662323+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.663214+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.81
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662376+00:00
value: Accurate disclosure of the single-state licensure limitation resolves any potential concern about misleading recipients regarding practice authority.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661044+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661610+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661156+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661543+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.660986+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662220+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.663045+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.661768+00:00
value: 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

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662787+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.663145+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662271+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:23:30.662702+00:00
value: 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
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: business cards serve the function of what were formerly known as calling cards, this purpose being to provide basic identification and contact information.
from entity text: historical era of calling cards
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: contemporary use of business cards
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: contemporary use of business cards
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics before current tempered approach to advertising ethics
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: 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.
from entity text: legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current tempered approach to advertising ethics
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current tempered approach to advertising ethics
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.672310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

AllEngineers-Advertising-AntitrustandCommercialFreeSpeech-Tempering
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedProfessionalCodeGuidanceProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional Ethics Bodies
constraintclass: Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: First Amendment commercial free speech doctrine; U.S. antitrust law; BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, 84-2
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Applies to all BER advertising ethics opinions issued after the 1960s-1970s legal challenges
textreferences: 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
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective
textreferences: contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.665989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit1-BusinessCard-NoLicensureStates-Constraint
type: BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Situation 1)
constraintclass: Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
temporalscope: At time of business meeting distribution in State E
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.654565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-Counterfactual-UnlicensedFirm-BusinessDevelopment-Prohibited
type: BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirm-Licensure-BackedSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Hypothetical scenario where a business development engineer solicits work in a state where neither the engineer nor the firm holds licensure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Business Development Engineer (Situation 3 Counterfactual — Unlicensed Firm)
constraintclass: Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure-Backed Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering licensure and solicitation laws
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: During any business development activities in target state where firm is unlicensed
textreferences: This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card
textreferences: prospecting for work would not appear to satisfy the intent of the state's engineering laws and regulations and therefore would not be ethical
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.664920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-EngineerD-SecondhandRestraint-Constraint
type: SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer D (Situation 4)
constraintclass: Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; Professional Reciprocity Standards
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
temporalscope: Prior to filing complaint with State C licensing board
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.656443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-NonAttribution-Constraint
type: Third-PartyBusinessCardRedistributionNon-AttributionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer D (Situation 4)
constraintclass: Third-Party Business Card Redistribution Non-Attribution Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
temporalscope: At time of Engineer D's complaint filing decision
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.656075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument — General Principle Invocation
type: BusinessCardNon-SolicitationCharacterPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer
appliedto: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Business Card Non-Solicitation Character Principle
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: This Board does not take the position that handing out a business card, in whatever setting, is tantamount to offering to do work.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: other documents exist expressly for the purpose of securing work, such as statements of qualifications, proposals, contracts and the like
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.658195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
type: Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Invoked By Engineer A Situation 4
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution No Violation
attributes: {'license_states': ['B'], 'card_distribution_state': 'C', 'card_contents': ['State B information only'], 'context': 'social visit, non-business purpose', 'recipient': 'non-engineer friend'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'card_recipient', 'target': 'Friend X'}
relationships: {'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'State C Engineering Licensure Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.641600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReporterEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Invoked By Engineer D
has obligation: Engineer D Situation 4 Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Threshold Assessment
attributes: {'action_taken': 'reported Engineer A to State C licensing board', 'information_source': 'secondhand via Friend X', 'reporting_jurisdiction': 'State C'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'information_received_from', 'target': 'Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient'}
relationships: {'type': 'reported_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}
relationships: {'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'State C Engineering Licensure Board'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D
textreferences: telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.642123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineering Advertising Antitrust Legal Framework
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing since the legal challenges of the 1960s and 1970s established commercial free speech and antitrust constraints on professional advertising codes
affectedparties: All engineers evaluating advertising conduct
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: Professional engineering societies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
subject: The governing legal environment for engineering advertising ethics analysis, shaped by 1960s-1970s legal challenges to professional code restrictions
terminatedby: Change in governing legal doctrine (not anticipated)
textreferences: 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
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective
textreferences: contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics
triggeringevent: Legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s establishing commercial free speech and antitrust doctrine applicable to engineering advertising
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.648242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineering Firm Employing Licensed State Engineers
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Marketing Communication Currency Obligation — Ongoing Maintenance
has obligation: Engineers and Firms Marketing Material Currency Maintenance Ongoing Obligation
attributes: {'licensure': 'Must be duly licensed in states where business development occurs', 'obligation': 'Ensure firm-level compliance with state registration laws'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.647069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Ethics Code Spirit and Letter Obligation in Advertising Context
type: EthicsCodeasHigherStandardThanLegalMinimum
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
appliedto: Engineering advertising practices generally
balancingwith: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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?'
textreferences: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.657945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Invoked Across All Situations
type: LicensureIntegrityandPublicProtectionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: All four business card distribution situations
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
balancingwith: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.650218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Ongoing Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation State
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Continuous — persists as long as any marketing materials are in circulation
affectedparties: All engineers
affectedparties: Clients and public receiving marketing materials
affectedparties: Engineering firms
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: Engineers' and firms' ongoing obligation to maintain accurate, truthful, and current marketing materials including business cards, brochures, and websites
terminatedby: Cessation of all marketing activity (not a realistic termination condition for active practitioners)
textreferences: Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible
textreferences: These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer or firm maintains any public-facing marketing or communication materials
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.648685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit1-TitleInvocation-UnlicensedJurisdiction
type: EngineeringTitleInvocationTriggeringLicensureObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During and after the State E business meeting where the card is distributed
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Recipients of the card
affectedparties: State E licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
stateclass: Engineering Title Invocation Triggering Licensure Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's use of 'P.E.' title in State E without State E licensure (Situation 1)
terminatedby: Clarification of licensure scope or cessation of card distribution in State E
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer A invokes the 'P.E.' designation on a business card distributed in State E, a jurisdiction where he is not licensed
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.640686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit2-AddressLicensureMismatch-StateE
type: Address-LicensureJurisdictionMismatchState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From distribution of the card at the State E business meeting onward
affectedparties: Business meeting recipients in State E
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State E licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
stateclass: Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State
subject: Engineer A's business card listing State E address without State E licensure (Situation 2)
terminatedby: Card revision to clarify non-licensure in State E, or acquisition of State E licensure
textreferences: Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer A distributes a card listing a State E mailing address while licensed only in States B, C, and D — not State E
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.642454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit2-BusinessCard-Ambiguity-AddressMismatch
type: BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From distribution of the card at the State E business meeting onward
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State E business meeting recipients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State
subject: Engineer A's business card creating false inference of State E licensure through address listing (Situation 2)
terminatedby: Card revision or explicit clarification to recipients
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.642650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-BusinessCard-OfficeLicensureMismatch-StateB
type: Address-LicensureJurisdictionMismatchState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing while the card is in circulation
affectedparties: Card recipients
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State B licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State
subject: Engineer A's card listing State B offices while holding only State C licensure (Situation 3)
terminatedby: Card revision, State B licensure obtained, or explicit disclaimer added
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.643275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit3-TitleInvocation-StateB-NonEngineeringServices
type: EngineeringTitleInvocationTriggeringLicensureObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing while Engineer A distributes the card and maintains State B offices without State B licensure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Recipients of the card in State C
affectedparties: State B licensing board
affectedparties: State C licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Engineering Title Invocation Triggering Licensure Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's use of 'P.E.' title on card noting State B offices while licensed only in State C (Situation 3)
terminatedby: Acquisition of State B licensure, removal of State B office reference, or cessation of engineering title use on card
textreferences: Engineer A hands out his business card in State C
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.643099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-BusinessCard-StateB-SocialDistribution
type: BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Friend X's redistribution of the card to Engineer D through licensing board resolution
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: State C licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information
stateclass: Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State
subject: Engineer A's State B-only business card appearing in State C through social redistribution (Situation 4)
terminatedby: Licensing board determination that social distribution without solicitation intent does not constitute licensure misrepresentation
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.643882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 1 - No Physical Address Business Card Ambiguity
type: BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From distribution of the business card through any correction or replacement with an address-bearing card
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Recipients of the business card
affectedparties: State E engineering licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State
subject: Engineer A's business card lacking a physical address in Situation 1
terminatedby: Replacement of card with one bearing a physical address identifying licensure jurisdiction
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
textreferences: business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
triggeringevent: Engineer A distributes a business card that contains no physical address, preventing recipients from inferring the jurisdiction of licensure
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.646301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 3 Counterfactual - Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation
type: UnlicensedFirmBusinessDevelopmentSolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Duration of solicitation activities in the jurisdiction without firm licensure
affectedparties: Business development engineer
affectedparties: Engineering firm
affectedparties: Prospective clients
affectedparties: State licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation State
subject: Hypothetical business development engineer soliciting work for a firm with no licensed engineers in the target jurisdiction
terminatedby: Firm obtains licensure in the jurisdiction, or ceases solicitation activities
textreferences: This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card
textreferences: prospecting for work would not appear to satisfy the intent of the state's engineering laws and regulations and therefore would not be ethical
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Business development representative prospects for engineering work in a jurisdiction where neither the representative nor the firm's engineers hold licensure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.647684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 4 - Third-Party Social Context Business Card Redistribution
type: Third-PartyBusinessCardRedistributioninUnlicensedJurisdictionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer D's submission to the State C licensure board through resolution of the board inquiry
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: State C engineering licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Third-Party Business Card Redistribution in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State
subject: 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
terminatedby: State C licensure board resolves the matter, finding no violation
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer D brings Engineer A's business card (distributed socially, not professionally) to the State C engineering licensure board
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.647930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Invoked in Business Card Context
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card advertising practices generally
appliedto: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
balancingwith: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive
textreferences: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.657367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer
type: BusinessDevelopmentMarketingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument — General Principle Invocation
adheres to principle: Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure Prerequisite — Ethical Activity
has obligation: Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Ethical Activity
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Engineering Firm with State-Licensed Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Engineering Firm with State-Licensed Engineers'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Business Development Marketing Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.646883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Mailing Address Business Card
type: Multi-StatePEBusinessCardMailingAddressInclusionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Situation 2 Conventional Presumption Rebuttal — Ethical Compliance
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-State PE Business Card Mailing Address Inclusion Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.651200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting Accurate Card Compliance
type: BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionLicensureClarityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting with Accurate Card — Ethical Compliance
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Situation 3)
obligationclass: Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card in State C
textreferences: Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.661018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethical Violation
type: BusinessCardMailingAddressDisclosureObligationinMulti-StatePractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation in Multi-State Practice
sourcetext: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
textreferences: to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.658527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 2 Conventional Presumption Rebuttal — Ethical Compliance
type: ConventionalAddress-LicensureInferenceandRebuttalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Situation 2 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
balancingwith: PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Conventional Address-Licensure Inference and Rebuttal Obligation
sourcetext: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.
tensionresolution: No tension — the engineer's affirmative disclosure satisfies both the letter and spirit of the honesty obligation
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there.
textreferences: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.658763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Business Card Distribution
type: Multi-StatePEBusinessCardLicensureJurisdictionIdentificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Sit2-BusinessCard-Ambiguity-AddressMismatch
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-State PE Business Card Licensure Jurisdiction Identification Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.651063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 2 Licensure State Identification Compliance
type: BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionLicensureClarityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Sit2-AddressLicensureMismatch-StateE
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Situation 2)
obligationclass: Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.660776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 2 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
type: Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Business Card Distribution
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Mailing Address Business Card
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 2 Licensure State Identification Compliance
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State E Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D
textreferences: business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D
textreferences: lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.641153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Threshold Assessment
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Invoked By Engineer D
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
temporalscope: Before filing the complaint with the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.652156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A Business Card Content
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card content accuracy across all four situations
balancingwith: Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
balancingwith: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.650386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Invoked in Situation 4 Complaint
type: ProportionalityinMisconductCharacterization
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assessment of whether Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct constitutes reportable misconduct
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
sourcetext: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.649743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-NoLicensureStates
type: BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A distributes the business card at the State E business meeting
affectedparties: Business meeting recipients in State E
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State E licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
stateclass: Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State
subject: Engineer A's business card distribution in State E (Situation 1)
terminatedby: Card revision to include licensure states or clarifying information
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.640416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting with Accurate Card — Ethical Compliance
type: SocialContextPETitleDisplayNon-ViolationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.659091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Invoked By Engineer A Situation 4
type: SocialContextPETitleDisplayNon-ViolationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card given to Friend X during social visit to State C
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
sourcetext: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
tensionresolution: The social context and non-engineer recipient mean that the public protection rationale for licensure title restrictions does not apply; no ethics violation occurs.
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.649386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card distribution practices
appliedto: Engineering advertising ethics generally
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
sourcetext: the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective
textreferences: opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.657637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Licensure Jurisdiction Omission Business Card
type: Multi-StatePEBusinessCardLicensureJurisdictionIdentificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Situation 1 - No Physical Address Business Card Ambiguity
casecontext: Situation 1: Engineer A attends a business meeting in State E and distributes a PE-designated card that omits the states of licensure entirely.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
derived from principle: Qualification Transparency Invoked By Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-State PE Business Card Licensure Jurisdiction Identification Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.650700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer
type: ImproperLicensureComplaintFilingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer D
adheres to principle: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Invoked in Situation 4 Complaint
has obligation: Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure
has obligation: Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition
has obligation: Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'jurisdiction': 'State C', 'action': 'Filed complaint with State C engineering licensure board'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'complainant_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}
relationships: {'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'State C Engineering Licensure Board'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Improper Licensure Complaint Filing Engineer
sourcetext: it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: 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
textreferences: it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.638611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Invoked By Engineer D
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThreshold
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assessment of whether Situation 4 conduct violates State C engineering licensure rules
balancingwith: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
sourcetext: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.650066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Marketing Communication Currency Obligation — Ongoing Maintenance
type: MarketingMaterialQualificationAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
appliedto: Engineering Firm Employing Licensed State Engineers
balancingwith: Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: No significant tension — the principle reinforces the firm's affirmative duty to maintain accurate public-facing information
textreferences: Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible.
textreferences: In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced.
textreferences: These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.660244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
type: PETitleOmissionofLicensureJurisdictionDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card used at business meeting in State E
balancingwith: Practical business card design constraints
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
tensionresolution: The obligation to disclose states of licensure outweighs practical convenience; Situation 2 demonstrates that compliance is achievable.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.638232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Qualification Transparency Invoked By Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card
type: QualificationTransparencyinProfessionalTitleUse
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card presented at business meeting in State E
balancingwith: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.638069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 3 Business Card
type: QualificationTransparencyinProfessionalTitleUse
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card distributed in State C accurately reflecting State B offices and State C-only licensure
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Accurate disclosure of the single-state licensure limitation resolves any potential concern about misleading recipients regarding practice authority.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.649218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Mailing Address Omission Business Card
type: Multi-StatePEBusinessCardMailingAddressInclusionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-NoLicensureStates
casecontext: Situation 1: Engineer A's business card omits both the states of licensure and any mailing address, compounding the misleading impression of the card.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-State PE Business Card Mailing Address Inclusion Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.650893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
type: Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A Situation 3
adheres to principle: Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 3 Business Card
adheres to principle: Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting with Accurate Card — Ethical Compliance
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting Accurate Card Compliance
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Services Scope Maintenance State B
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Business Card
attributes: {'license_states': ['C'], 'office_state': 'B', 'card_distribution_state': 'C', 'services_in_unlicensed_state': 'non-engineering consulting only'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State C Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: Engineer A hands out his business card in State C
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.641390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Against Situation 4 Conduct
type: ImproperComplaintFilingProhibitionAgainstEngineerforTechnicallyCompliantConduct
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer
appliedto: Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
sourcetext: it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.660007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineers and Firms Marketing Material Currency Maintenance Ongoing Obligation
type: MarketingMaterialOngoingAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Ongoing Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation State
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Marketing Communication Currency Obligation — Ongoing Maintenance
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers and Engineering Firms (general)
obligationclass: Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Ongoing; triggered whenever qualifications, licensure status, or personnel change
textreferences: Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible
textreferences: In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced
textreferences: These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.662060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer D
type: ImproperComplaintFilingProhibitionAgainstEngineerforTechnicallyCompliantConduct
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Licensure board complaint filed in State C against Engineer A
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer
principleclass: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
sourcetext: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.649574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC
type: Third-PartyBusinessCardRedistributioninUnlicensedJurisdictionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Friend X shares the card with Engineer D through resolution of the licensing board complaint
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Friend X
affectedparties: State C licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X
stateclass: Third-Party Business Card Redistribution in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State
subject: Friend X's redistribution of Engineer A's State B business card to Engineer D in State C (Situation 4)
terminatedby: State C licensing board determination; clarification of Engineer A's non-solicitation intent
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.643603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution — No Violation
type: SocialContextPETitleDisplayNon-ViolationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
appliedto: Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient
balancingwith: PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.659320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Antitrust Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics Recognition
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopeRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Situation 1 Truthful Advertising Obligation Violation
defeasible under: Engineering Advertising Antitrust Legal Framework
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Engineers generally
obligationclass: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
temporalscope: Throughout the Board's analysis of advertising ethics questions
textreferences: 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
textreferences: BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective
textreferences: opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.663214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
type: BusinessCardMailingAddressDisclosureObligationinMulti-StatePractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card lacking mailing address presented at business meeting in State E
balancingwith: PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation in Multi-State Practice
sourcetext: does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.650557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure Prerequisite — Ethical Activity
type: FirmLicensurePrerequisiteforBusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeActivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer
appliedto: Engineering Firm Employing Licensed State Engineers
balancingwith: Business Card Non-Solicitation Character Principle
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Firm Licensure Prerequisite for Business Development Representative Activity
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.659720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
type: Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Ethics Code Spirit and Letter Obligation in Advertising Context
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A Business Card Content
adheres to principle: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Invoked By Engineer A Multi-State Card Distribution
adheres to principle: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Invoked Across All Situations
has obligation: Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition
has obligation: Engineers and Firms Marketing Material Currency Maintenance Ongoing Obligation
attributes: {'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)']}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer D Improper Complaint Filer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'NSPE Board of Ethical Review'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.638385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethics Violation
type: BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionLicensureClarityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Situation 1 Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Business Card
prevails over: Engineer A Situation 1 Mailing Address Omission Business Card
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethical Violation
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Situation 1)
obligationclass: Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
textreferences: to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.660522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Business Card
type: QualificationsNon-FalsificationandNon-MisrepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethics Violation
defeasible under: Sit1-TitleInvocation-UnlicensedJurisdiction
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A Business Card Content
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.652299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Services Scope Maintenance State B
type: Non-EngineeringExpertServicesScopeMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Business Card
defeasible under: Sit3-TitleInvocation-StateB-NonEngineeringServices
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A Situation 3
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Engineering Expert Services Scope Maintenance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of performing consulting services in State B
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.651519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Business Card
type: Multi-StatePEBusinessCardOffice-LicensureJurisdictionDifferentiationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Services Scope Maintenance State B
defeasible under: Sit3-BusinessCard-OfficeLicensureMismatch-StateB
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 3 Business Card
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-State PE Business Card Office-Licensure Jurisdiction Differentiation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card in State C
textreferences: Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.
textreferences: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.651351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition
type: SocialContextPEBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint
prevails over: Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution — No Violation
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
temporalscope: At the time of the social visit to State C
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.651691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint
type: SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition
defeasible under: Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Invoked in Situation 4 Complaint
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
temporalscope: Before filing the complaint with the State C engineering licensure board
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.651869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Invoked By Engineer A Multi-State Card Distribution
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card distribution across multiple states with varying licensure status
balancingwith: Practical business card design constraints
balancingwith: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D. Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.649917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A Situation 3
type: Non-EngineeringExpertServicesPermissibilityinUnlicensedJurisdiction
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-engineering consulting services performed in State B by engineer licensed only in State C
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility in Unlicensed Jurisdiction
sourcetext: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B. Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.649048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card
type: QualificationTransparencyinProfessionalTitleUse
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card presented at business meeting in State E
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Situation 2 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
principleclass: Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Full disclosure of states of licensure resolves the potential tension between using the PE title in an unlicensed state and the transparency obligation.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.648898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Ethical Activity
type: BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirmLicensurePrerequisiteComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
defeasible under: Situation 3 Counterfactual - Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation
prevails over: Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure Prerequisite — Ethical Activity
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Business Development Marketing Engineer / Engineering Firm
obligationclass: Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Whenever business development activities are conducted in a state
textreferences: This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.661790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter
type: Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
adheres to principle: PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1
adheres to principle: Qualification Transparency Invoked By Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 1 Licensure Jurisdiction Omission Business Card
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 1 Mailing Address Omission Business Card
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethics Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 1 Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Business Card
has obligation: Engineer A Situation 1 Truthful Advertising Obligation Violation
attributes: {'license_states': ['B', 'C', 'D'], 'card_distribution_state': 'E', 'card_omissions': ['mailing address', 'states of licensure']}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State E Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D
textreferences: Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D
textreferences: does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed
textreferences: hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.640879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 1 Truthful Advertising Obligation Violation
type: TruthfulandNon-DeceptiveAdvertisingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Antitrust Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics Recognition
defeasible under: Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-NoLicensureStates
prevails over: Antitrust Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics Recognition
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Invoked in Business Card Context
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Situation 1)
obligationclass: Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable
textreferences: a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.662969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution No Violation
type: SocialContextPEBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
prevails over: Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution — No Violation
derived from principle: Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Invoked By Engineer A Situation 4
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Situation 4)
obligationclass: Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: as to Situation 4, the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code
temporalscope: At the time of the social visit to State C
textreferences: 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
textreferences: as to Situation 4, the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.661270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure
type: SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition
defeasible under: Situation 4 - Third-Party Social Context Business Card Redistribution
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer D
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At the time of filing the licensure board complaint
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.661519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition
type: SocialContextPEBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure
prevails over: Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Against Situation 4 Conduct
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding whether to file the licensure board complaint
textreferences: Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
textreferences: On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.652012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
type: StateRegistrationLawConformanceinAdvertisingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Ethical Activity
competes with: Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution No Violation
defeasible under: Sit4-BusinessCard-StateB-SocialDistribution
defeasible under: Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Invoked By Engineer A Multi-State Card Distribution
discoveredincase: 128
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 128
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (all situations)
obligationclass: State Registration Law Conformance in Advertising Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
temporalscope: Whenever business cards are distributed or business development activities are conducted in any state
textreferences: such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 128 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T22:14:48.662338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 128 Extraction