American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Standard
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
Engineer A as committee chair; Engineer B as opposing expert and subcommittee member; Attorney X in retaining Engineer A
The technical standard governing the design and safety of the pressure vessel at issue in the personal injury litigation; Engineer A chairs the standards committee responsible for this code, creating a direct relationship between the governing technical standard and the adversarial expert witness role
Current edition maintained by the standards committee Engineer A chairs
Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
Engineer A in evaluating the propriety of accepting the defense expert engagement
Governs the ethical obligations of Engineer A when providing expert witness services in an adversarial legal proceeding where a professional relationship with the opposing expert exists through shared committee membership, including limits of loyalty and obligations of impartiality
Attorney X Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
{'profession': 'Attorney (defense)', 'client_represented': 'Boiler manufacturer defendant', 'case_type': 'Personal injury — pressure vessel explosion'}
Attorney X is the defense attorney representing the boiler manufacturer in the personal injury case who has requested Engineer A to conduct a forensic investigation and potentially serve as expert witness, and who must receive full disclosure of Engineer A's committee chair role and its relationship to opposing expert Engineer B.
{'type': 'adversarial_to', 'target': "Plaintiff's counsel (implied)"}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness'}
Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
Attorney X Defense Counsel Conflict Disclosure Receipt Capability
Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification Capability
Attorney X was required to possess the capability to receive and assess full conflict disclosure from Engineer A — including Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — and to make an informed judgment about whether to proceed with the retention given the disclosed dual role relationships.
Attorney X retained Engineer A as defense forensic expert in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety, requiring receipt and assessment of dual role conflict disclosures.
The BER's identification that Attorney X, as retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
Attorney X (Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert)
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
Attorney X Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Conflict Verification Capability
Attorney X, as the retaining defense counsel, possesses — or should possess — the capability to verify whether Engineer A's dual role as committee chair and defense expert creates conflicts requiring disclosure or remediation, including proactively inquiring about Engineer A's committee relationships with opposing experts before finalizing the retention.
Attorney X retains Engineer A as defense forensic expert in the pressure vessel explosion personal injury case, and must receive and act upon full disclosure of Engineer A's committee chair relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
Attorney X's role as the retaining counsel who must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B, and who bears responsibility for ensuring the retention is ethically sound.
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
More recently, in BER Case 07-12, placing 02-8 (2002) strictly before 07-12 (2007)
BER Case 07-12 before present case (Engineer A / Attorney X)
The discussion transitions from BER Case 07-12 with 'Turning to the facts in the present case,' indicating the present case follows 2007
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 67-1
in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
In ruling that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
[Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical foundation for analyzing dual-role conflicts in the present case
Precedent establishing that an engineer serving simultaneously in a public approval role and a private consulting role creates an impermissible conflict of interest, even absent formal voting participation
Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, placing 67-1 (1967) strictly before 02-8 (2002)
Timeline summary places 1967 case first, 2007 case described as 'more recently' relative to both earlier cases
Engineering society standards-setting committee chaired by Engineer A
Boiler Code Standards and Safety Committee Technical Standards
Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
Engineer A has an obligation to fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee
Engineer A as committee chair; Engineer B as subcommittee member; referenced as the substantive domain creating the appearance of conflict
The technical standards being developed and chaired by Engineer A, which form the subject matter of the potential conflict of interest between his standards committee role and his forensic expert witness engagement
CausalLink_DOE Engineer Testifies Without
CausalLink_DOE Engineer Uses DOE-Branded
CausalLink_DOT Engineer Accepts Part-Time
CausalLink_Doe Prepares Private Subdivisi
CausalLink_Doe Votes to Approve Own Plans
CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Forensic Ex
CausalLink_Engineer A Avoids Ex Parte Lit
CausalLink_Engineer A Discloses Committee
Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
The Board determined that Engineer A's volunteer committee chairmanship does not, by itself, create a clear or apparent conflict of interest with his role as a private forensic engineering expert, meaning no disqualifying conflict exists that would preclude him from serving.
Beyond the Board's finding that no clear or apparent conflict of interest exists in Engineer A's forensic role, the analysis understates a structural tension that the 'clear or apparent' standard may be too permissive to capture. The Board's framing treats the volunteer committee chairmanship as categorically separate from the adversarial expert engagement, but the supervisory relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B is not merely incidental — it is ongoing, institutionalized, and capable of influencing both the litigation and the standards work simultaneously. A more complete analysis would recognize that 'no clear conflict' is not equivalent to 'no conflict,' and that the appearance of impropriety to a reasonable outside observer — a litigant, a court, or the public relying on boiler safety standards — may be substantial even where no formal rule is violated. The Board's conclusion is defensible as a minimum threshold but should not be read as an affirmative endorsement of the arrangement's propriety.
The Board's conclusion that no clear conflict exists implicitly assumes that Engineer A's forensic objectivity will remain unaffected by his institutional authority over Engineer B's subcommittee. However, a consequentialist extension of this analysis reveals a second-order risk the Board does not address: even if Engineer A maintains full forensic objectivity, Engineer B's independent technical contributions to the boiler code standards subcommittee may be chilled by the awareness that his committee chair is simultaneously serving as an adversarial expert against him in active litigation. This dynamic could subtly distort the standards-development process in ways that harm the broader public safety mission of the boiler code committee — a harm that falls entirely outside the litigation itself and is therefore invisible to Attorney X, the court, and the Board's conflict-of-interest framework as applied. The public interest dimension of standards work, which the NSPE Code treats as paramount, counsels that Engineer A's obligations extend beyond disclosure to Attorney X and should encompass some affirmative protection of the committee's institutional integrity.
The Board's disclosure recommendation to Attorney X, while necessary, is structurally incomplete because it treats disclosure as a one-time act directed solely at the retaining attorney rather than as an ongoing, evolving obligation. As the litigation progresses, the committee relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B may intensify — for example, if Engineer A must evaluate Engineer B's subcommittee work, vote on matters affecting Engineer B's standing, or preside over committee meetings at which Engineer B is present. Each such development represents a new disclosure event that Attorney X, and potentially the court, should be informed of. The Board's static framing of disclosure as a single act at the outset of engagement does not adequately account for this temporal dimension. A more complete ethical standard would require Engineer A to treat his disclosure obligation as continuous and to update Attorney X whenever the committee relationship materially changes during the pendency of the litigation.
The Board's recommendation that Engineer A disclose his committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X is ethically necessary but may be ethically insufficient standing alone. The disclosure is directed exclusively to the retaining attorney — a party with an adversarial interest in the litigation — rather than to any neutral body capable of independently evaluating whether the dual role compromises the integrity of the standards committee. A more robust ethical posture would have Engineer A also consider proactively notifying the engineering society's ethics or governance body about the dual-role situation, not because any rule explicitly requires it, but because the standards committee's credibility as a public safety institution is a value independent of the litigation outcome. This additional step would demonstrate that Engineer A's primary loyalty is to the profession and the public rather than to the defense client, consistent with the NSPE Code's hierarchy of obligations.
The Board's recommendation that Engineer A avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation is sound but addresses only the most obvious vector of impropriety — direct communication. It does not address the subtler and potentially more consequential risk that Engineer A's institutional authority as committee chair could be exercised, even unconsciously, in ways that disadvantage Engineer B in the standards context during the litigation period. For example, Engineer A might assign Engineer B less prominent subcommittee work, delay acting on Engineer B's technical proposals, or allow interpersonal friction from the adversarial proceeding to color his evaluation of Engineer B's committee contributions. A more complete ethical obligation would require Engineer A to affirmatively recuse himself from any committee decisions, evaluations, or actions that specifically and directly affect Engineer B's subcommittee standing for the duration of the litigation, not merely to refrain from litigation-related communications. This structural separation — rather than communication restraint alone — would more effectively protect both Engineer B's professional dignity and the committee's institutional integrity.
From a deontological perspective, the Board's communication restraint recommendation — that Engineer A avoid exchanges with Engineer B about the litigation without direction from legal counsel — implicitly subordinates Engineer A's independent ethical judgment to the strategic direction of Attorney X. This framing is in tension with the NSPE Code's requirement that engineers act as objective technical experts rather than advocates for their clients. Engineer A's obligation to avoid improper communication with Engineer B derives from his own professional ethics, not merely from litigation strategy, and should be understood as self-executing regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction. Conditioning the restraint on legal counsel's direction risks creating the impression that Engineer A's ethical conduct is contingent on client permission rather than on independent professional obligation — a posture inconsistent with the non-advocate status that forensic engineers are required to maintain in adversarial proceedings.
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
The Board found that Engineer A has an affirmative disclosure obligation to inform Attorney X of both his own chairmanship role and Engineer B's membership on a subcommittee within that committee, so that the retaining attorney can assess any potential conflict or appearance of impropriety.
Engineer A's authority as committee chair over Engineer B's subcommittee does create a meaningful power imbalance that extends beyond the litigation itself. Even if Engineer A scrupulously avoids all direct communication with Engineer B about the pending case, the institutional relationship persists: Engineer A retains authority over committee assignments, agenda-setting, and the broader direction of the subcommittee on which Engineer B serves. This structural asymmetry could subtly chill Engineer B's willingness to assert independent technical positions within the committee — particularly on boiler and pressure vessel standards — if Engineer B perceives that the chair who is simultaneously opposing him in high-stakes litigation holds evaluative power over his volunteer standing. The Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists does not fully reckon with this downstream chilling effect on the standards body's technical integrity. The risk is not merely to the litigation but to the ongoing independence of the standards development process itself, which serves a broad public safety function.
Although the Board did not explicitly require it, Engineer A should seriously consider voluntarily recusing himself from any committee decisions, evaluations, subcommittee appointments, or agenda actions that directly affect Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation. This recusal would not be legally mandated by the Board's analysis, but it reflects the higher standard of professional integrity that a virtuous forensic engineer and committee chair should aspire to. The Board's recommendation to avoid direct litigation-related communications with Engineer B is a necessary but insufficient structural safeguard. Communication restraint does not eliminate the institutional power Engineer A holds over Engineer B's committee standing. A formal, documented recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee would more credibly demonstrate that Engineer A's dual roles are being managed with genuine impartiality, protecting both the standards body's integrity and Engineer A's own reputation for objectivity.
The Board's conclusion that no 'clear or apparent' conflict of interest exists does not adequately account for the reputational harm that could accrue to the boiler code standards committee as an institution. From the perspective of the legal community, litigants, and the general public, the image of a standards committee chair serving as a paid adversarial expert against one of his own subcommittee members in active personal injury litigation raises legitimate questions about whether the committee's technical outputs could be influenced — even unconsciously — by the adversarial dynamic. The NSPE Code's emphasis on engineers holding public safety paramount and acting in ways that enhance the profession's honor implies an obligation to consider not only whether a conflict actually exists but whether a reasonable observer would perceive one. The Board's 'no clear conflict' conclusion addresses the former but underweights the latter. Engineer A and Attorney X should both recognize that the appearance of institutional compromise to the standards body is itself an ethical concern independent of whether Engineer A's forensic opinions are in fact objective.
Engineer A's disclosure obligation arose at the earliest moment he could reasonably have discovered Engineer B's subcommittee membership — ideally before formally accepting the engagement, or at the very latest, immediately upon discovery. The NSPE Code's requirement to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest implies a proactive duty of inquiry: Engineer A should have investigated whether any opposing experts in the litigation held positions within his committee before accepting retention, not merely waited for the information to surface passively. If Engineer A discovered Engineer B's membership only after accepting the engagement, the ethical obligation shifted immediately to disclosure upon discovery, not at some later formal milestone. A delay in disclosure after the point of discovery — even a brief one — would itself constitute a deviation from the honesty and conflict-of-interest disclosure standards the Code requires, because it would mean Engineer A continued in the engagement while withholding a material fact from Attorney X. The timing of disclosure is not ethically neutral; it is integral to the integrity of the engagement itself.
The tension between the Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation principle and the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance principle is real but resolvable through structural safeguards rather than categorical prohibition. The Board correctly recognizes that volunteer committee service should not automatically preclude legitimate professional engagements — engineers who contribute to standards bodies should not be penalized by being barred from forensic work. However, this principle reaches its limit when the volunteer role places the engineer in a position of institutional supervisory authority over the opposing expert in active litigation. At that point, the appearance of impropriety is not merely theoretical; it is structural. The resolution is not necessarily withdrawal from the forensic engagement, but rather a combination of full disclosure, communication restraint, and — as argued above — voluntary recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee. This layered approach honors both principles: it preserves Engineer A's ability to serve as a forensic expert while actively managing the supervisory relationship that creates the appearance problem.
The tension between Engineer A's Non-Advocate Status in adversarial proceedings and his Honesty obligation to Attorney X does not create a genuine ethical dilemma when properly analyzed. Engineer A's duty to remain objective and not merely serve the defense's interests is fully consistent with — indeed, reinforced by — complete transparency to Attorney X about the committee relationship. The concern that full disclosure might strategically benefit or harm the defense client is a legal strategy consideration for Attorney X, not an ethical consideration that should temper Engineer A's disclosure. Engineer A's ethical obligation runs to the truth and to the integrity of the proceeding, not to the strategic interests of the retaining party. If complete disclosure causes Attorney X to seek a different expert, that outcome is ethically preferable to Engineer A withholding material information to preserve his engagement. The Non-Advocate Status principle actually supports maximum transparency: an engineer who withholds conflict information to remain engaged is, in effect, subordinating objectivity to client retention — precisely the advocate posture the principle prohibits.
The Professional Dignity principle and the Objectivity principle do not fundamentally conflict in Engineer A's situation, but their coexistence requires careful behavioral discipline. Engineer A can simultaneously treat Engineer B with professional respect as a subcommittee member and render a forensic opinion that contradicts Engineer B's expert conclusions — these are not mutually exclusive. Professional dignity does not require agreement; it requires that disagreement be expressed through legitimate technical channels, grounded in evidence and analysis rather than personal animus or institutional leverage. The ethical risk arises if Engineer A's committee authority over Engineer B bleeds into the forensic arena — for example, if Engineer A's written report or testimony implicitly or explicitly invokes his committee standing to undermine Engineer B's credibility rather than his technical conclusions. The Board's recommendation to avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the litigation without legal counsel direction is a practical safeguard against this risk, but Engineer A must also ensure that his forensic work product itself reflects purely technical objectivity and does not weaponize the institutional relationship.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty of full disclosure to Attorney X extends beyond reporting the bare structural facts of the committee relationship. A duty-based framework requires that Engineer A not merely transmit information but ensure that the disclosure is substantively adequate — meaning Engineer A should proactively assess and communicate his own judgment about whether the committee relationship creates a conflict of interest that could compromise his objectivity or the integrity of the standards body. Merely stating 'I chair the committee and Engineer B is on a subcommittee' satisfies the letter of disclosure but not its spirit if Engineer A withholds his own professional assessment of what that relationship means for his fitness to serve. The categorical duty of honesty implies a duty to share not only facts but also material professional judgments about those facts. Whether that assessment ultimately leads to withdrawal is a decision for Attorney X and Engineer A together, but Engineer A cannot ethically outsource the evaluative judgment entirely to Attorney X by providing only raw facts without context or self-assessment.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's willingness to serve as an adversarial expert against Engineer B — a person over whom Engineer A holds institutional supervisory authority — raises genuine questions about the professional integrity and impartiality that a virtuous forensic engineer should embody. A virtuous engineer does not merely ask 'Is this formally prohibited?' but rather 'Does this arrangement reflect the character and judgment that the profession demands?' The answer here is ambiguous. On one hand, a virtuous engineer might recognize that forensic expertise is a legitimate professional service and that committee relationships should not categorically preclude it. On the other hand, a virtuous engineer would also recognize that accepting an engagement that places him in an adversarial posture against someone he institutionally supervises — without taking robust structural steps to separate those roles — reflects a degree of professional overconfidence or insensitivity to the integrity of both roles. Virtue ethics would counsel Engineer A to err on the side of greater structural separation, not merely communication restraint, as the more integrity-preserving course of action.
From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists is incomplete because it does not adequately weigh the downstream risks to the boiler code standards committee's institutional integrity. If Engineer A's adversarial posture toward Engineer B in litigation — combined with his retained supervisory authority over Engineer B's subcommittee — causes Engineer B to self-censor his technical contributions, defer to Engineer A's positions on contested standards questions, or withdraw from subcommittee participation entirely, the harm extends far beyond the two engineers. The standards development process depends on the free and independent technical contributions of its members; any dynamic that chills that independence harms the public safety mission the committee exists to serve. A consequentialist analysis would weigh these systemic risks against the benefit of retaining Engineer A as a forensic expert, and might conclude that the aggregate harm to the standards body's integrity outweighs the marginal benefit of Engineer A's particular forensic expertise — especially given that other qualified experts without committee ties could presumably be retained.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty to avoid conflicts of interest under the NSPE Code creates an independent obligation to recuse himself from committee decisions or proceedings involving Engineer B for the duration of the litigation — an obligation that exists regardless of whether Attorney X is satisfied with the disclosure provided. Attorney X's satisfaction with the disclosure resolves the client-relationship dimension of the conflict but does not resolve the committee-integrity dimension. Engineer A's duties run not only to Attorney X and the defense client but also to the engineering society, to Engineer B as a fellow professional, and to the public that relies on the standards the committee produces. A deontological framework recognizes that these duties are independent and cannot be discharged by satisfying only one party. Engineer A cannot ethically use Attorney X's acceptance of the disclosure as a complete ethical clearance for the dual-role arrangement; he must also independently satisfy his duties to the standards body and to the profession.
If Engineer A had discovered Engineer B's subcommittee membership only after submitting his initial forensic report, the ethical calculus would shift significantly but would not automatically require mandatory withdrawal. The governing standard should be whether the undisclosed relationship materially affected the objectivity or content of the report already submitted. If Engineer A can credibly demonstrate that the report was prepared without any knowledge of Engineer B's committee role and that its conclusions are grounded purely in technical analysis, then immediate disclosure upon discovery — accompanied by an offer to allow Attorney X to reassess the engagement — may be sufficient. However, if there is any reason to believe that Engineer A's prior awareness of Engineer B's identity (even without knowing his committee role) influenced the report's framing or conclusions, withdrawal and potentially report retraction would be the ethically required course. The standard governing this determination should be whether a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the undisclosed relationship could have influenced the work product, not merely whether Engineer A subjectively believes it did not.
If Engineer A had proactively notified the engineering society's ethics or governance body about the dual-role situation before proceeding, that additional step would have meaningfully strengthened the ethical foundation of his engagement. Such notification would serve several functions: it would create a formal record demonstrating good faith transparency; it would allow the society to assess whether its own governance rules or conflict-of-interest policies required any action; and it would protect the committee's institutional integrity by ensuring that the organization — not just the retaining attorney — had the opportunity to evaluate the arrangement. The Board's recommendations focus exclusively on disclosure to Attorney X, which addresses the client-relationship dimension but leaves the standards body uninformed and unable to exercise its own governance judgment. A higher standard of professional transparency would encompass both disclosures. This approach would also more credibly demonstrate that Engineer A's primary loyalty is to the integrity of the profession and the public safety mission of the standards body, rather than to the preservation of his forensic engagement.
If Attorney X, upon receiving Engineer A's full disclosure, had decided to retain a different forensic expert with no committee ties, the Board's ethical analysis would not explicitly endorse that outcome as preferable — but the logic of the analysis implies that it would be the cleaner arrangement. The Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists is framed permissively: it does not prohibit Engineer A's service but does not affirmatively endorse it as the optimal arrangement either. The fact that the Board imposes multiple disclosure and behavioral obligations on Engineer A to manage the dual-role situation implicitly acknowledges that the arrangement carries risks that a conflict-free engagement would not. If Attorney X's decision to seek a different expert would eliminate those risks entirely, then from a consequentialist standpoint that outcome is preferable — and this implication does subtly undercut the Board's 'no clear conflict' conclusion by revealing that the conflict, while manageable, is real enough to generate a substantial set of ethical obligations designed to contain it. A truly conflict-free situation would require no such containment measures.
If Engineer A had chosen to formally recuse himself from all committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation — rather than merely restraining direct communications about the case — that structural separation would have more effectively addressed the appearance of impropriety than communication restraint alone. The Board's recommendation to avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation is a behavioral constraint that depends entirely on Engineer A's self-discipline and is invisible to outside observers. A formal, documented recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee, by contrast, would be a structural and observable act that removes the power imbalance for the duration of the conflict. It would signal to Engineer B, to the engineering society, and to the legal community that Engineer A has taken affirmative steps to ensure that his committee authority cannot — even unconsciously — influence his forensic work or Engineer B's committee participation. The communication restraint the Board recommends is necessary but not sufficient; structural recusal would provide a more robust and credible safeguard.
Engineer A has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
The Board found that Engineer A's supervisory committee relationship with Engineer B creates an obligation to treat Engineer B with professional dignity and to refrain from any ex parte litigation-related communications with Engineer B outside of legal counsel's direction, in order to preserve objectivity and avoid improper influence.
The Board resolved the tension between Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation and Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance by treating disclosure — rather than withdrawal — as the primary ethical instrument. The Board implicitly held that volunteer committee service does not categorically disqualify an engineer from adversarial forensic engagements, even when the opposing expert is a subordinate committee member. This resolution prioritizes professional autonomy and the practical value of technical expertise in litigation, but it does so by offloading the conflict-management burden onto Attorney X: once Engineer A discloses the committee relationship fully, the retaining attorney becomes the decision-maker about whether the arrangement is acceptable. This approach is coherent but incomplete, because it treats the appearance-of-impropriety problem as one that belongs solely to the attorney-client relationship rather than also to the integrity of the standards committee itself. The principle of Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance is therefore only partially satisfied — the litigation side is addressed through disclosure, but the standards body side receives no structural protection.
The Professional Dignity principle and the Objectivity principle exist in genuine but manageable tension in this case, and the Board's recommendations implicitly resolve that tension through procedural separation rather than substantive reconciliation. Engineer A is required to treat Engineer B respectfully as a subcommittee member and to avoid direct litigation communications with him, while simultaneously being permitted — indeed expected — to render forensic opinions that may directly contradict Engineer B's expert conclusions. The Board's resolution is that these two obligations operate in different domains: professional dignity governs the committee relationship, while objectivity governs the forensic role, and the two domains are kept separate by the communication restraint the Board recommends. This domain-separation approach is practically workable but ethically thin, because it does not address the underlying reality that Engineer A's adversarial forensic posture toward Engineer B will inevitably color their committee interactions, regardless of whether any litigation-specific communication occurs. A more complete synthesis would recognize that Professional Dignity in a supervisory relationship requires not merely polite silence but active structural insulation — such as recusal from committee decisions affecting Engineer B's subcommittee — for the duration of the litigation.
The most significant unresolved principle tension in this case is between the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution principle — which recognizes that disclosure obligations intensify as the nature and depth of a conflict become clearer over time — and the Standards Committee Role Disclosure principle as applied by the Board, which frames disclosure as a discrete, one-time act directed at Attorney X. The Board's framing is static: Engineer A discloses the committee relationship, and the ethical obligation is thereby discharged. But the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution principle implies a dynamic, ongoing obligation: if the litigation intensifies, if Engineer A's committee authority over Engineer B's subcommittee becomes more consequential, or if new facts emerge that deepen the appearance of impropriety, Engineer A's disclosure obligations should correspondingly intensify. This case teaches that when two disclosure-related principles operate at different temporal scales — one static and transactional, the other dynamic and relational — the more protective principle should govern, particularly where public safety standards are implicated. The Board's failure to articulate an ongoing disclosure obligation leaves a structural gap that could allow a manageable conflict at the outset to become an unmanaged one as litigation progresses. The Honesty principle, which requires Engineer A to be truthful in all professional representations, reinforces the conclusion that disclosure to Attorney X should be treated as a continuing duty rather than a one-time event.
Attorney X now bears shared responsibility for managing the disclosed conflict; Engineer A's initial disclosure obligation is satisfied but broader obligations remain active; the engagement continues under a disclosed-conflict condition rather than an undisclosed-conflict condition
Present case, following Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's role
When Engineer A discloses their committee chair role to Attorney X, a formal record of the conflict is created, which automatically shifts the ethical and legal responsibility landscape. Attorney X now has constructive knowledge of the conflict and Engineer A has satisfied an initial disclosure obligation.
Testimony record now contains implicit misrepresentation of institutional affiliation; legal and professional record is potentially tainted; DOE's institutional position may be incorrectly inferred from private expert testimony
When the DOE engineer uses DOE-branded presentation materials while testifying as a private consultant, the audience automatically perceives the testimony as carrying DOE institutional authority, creating a misrepresentation outcome that occurs as a consequence of the presentation choice rather than as a separately intended deception.
DOE Engineer Testifies Without Full Disclosure
DOE Employee and private consultant retained by coal bed methane company
Conflating his DOE role with his private consulting role
Misleading the regulatory council about the independence and basis of his testimony
Undermining the integrity of the regulatory hearing process
Full disclosure of conflicts of interest
Honesty and integrity in professional practice
Engineer A (BER 07-12) (DOE Employee and private consultant retained by coal bed methane company)
Provide expert testimony on behalf of the coal bed methane company while maintaining ambiguity about his affiliations, potentially leveraging DOE credibility for private client benefit
Obligation to avoid misleading clients, employers, and the public
Obligation to be truthful and honest in professional reports and testimony
Obligation to fully disclose affiliations and conflicts of interest
Obligation to serve as faithful agent to DOE without private conflicts in the same domain
Engineer A (BER 07-12), a DOE employee consulting privately for coal bed methane companies, chose to testify as an expert witness before the State Y Environmental Quality Council without clearly disclosing his DOE employment status or his private consulting relationship with the coal bed methane industry.
DOE Engineer Uses DOE-Branded Presentation
DOE Employee testifying as private consultant
Audience and media would associate testimony with DOE official position
Newspaper would report him as a 'US DOE researcher' rather than a private consultant
Regulatory body would be misled about the independence and sponsorship of the testimony
Honesty and transparency in professional representations
Engineer A (BER 07-12) (DOE Employee testifying as private consultant)
deliberate or negligent (ambiguous per BER)
Present technical information effectively, with possible intent to leverage DOE institutional credibility to strengthen testimony on behalf of private client
BER Case 07-12, 2007, during regulatory hearing testimony
Obligation of faithful agency to DOE employer
Obligation to avoid using public employment status to benefit private clients
Obligation to be truthful and avoid misleading representations in professional practice
Obligation to clearly distinguish private consulting role from public employment role
Engineer A (BER 07-12) chose to use a PowerPoint presentation bearing his US DOE job title and affiliation during testimony that was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, creating a misleading impression of governmental endorsement or official capacity.
DOE Engineer Uses DOE-Branded Presentation → DOE Affiliation Misperception Created
When the DOE engineer uses DOE-branded presentation materials while testifying as a private consultant, a misperception of DOE affiliation is created
Had Engineer A used neutral presentation materials or explicitly stated that the views were personal and not DOE's, the misperception would not have been created
Audience's reasonable reliance on the branding as indicative of official DOE endorsement
Engineer A's actual role in the testimony being that of a private consultant, not a DOE representative
Engineer A's use of presentation materials bearing official DOE job title and affiliation
DOE-branded materials + private consulting context + no explicit disclaimer = sufficient to create misleading impression of institutional backing
DOT Engineer Accepts Part-Time Consulting Offer
State DOT Traffic Engineer and prospective part-time private consultant
Appearance of impropriety even if substantive conflicts did not materialize
Potential conflict of interest in dealings with municipalities in both his state highway and private airport roles
Risk of using state resources or influence in private work
Engineer A (BER 02-8) (State DOT Traffic Engineer and prospective part-time private consultant)
Supplement income through part-time consulting while maintaining state employment, leveraging prior airport design expertise
Municipal consulting and contract management
Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest between public employment and private consulting
Obligation to avoid situations creating appearance of impropriety
Obligation to avoid use of public resources for private benefit
Obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee to the state DOT
Engineer A (BER 02-8), while employed as a state DOT traffic engineer, chose to accept an offer from his former consulting firm to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities, despite his ongoing public employment role that involved relationships with those same municipalities.
DOT Engineer Accepts Part-Time Consulting Offer → Municipal Conflict Potential Identified
When the state DOT traffic engineer is approached about part-time consulting for a former firm, the potential for conflict is identified
Had Engineer A declined the offer or had the offer come from a firm with no nexus to DOT-regulated activities, the conflict potential would not have arisen
Engineer A's current employment as a state DOT traffic engineer with regulatory authority
Engineer A's decision to accept rather than decline the offer
The consulting offer coming from a firm whose work intersects with DOT regulatory decisions
Active DOT regulatory role + acceptance of consulting engagement from regulated-sector firm = sufficient to create conflict potential requiring disclosure and authorization
When and how must Engineer A disclose the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B to retaining counsel Attorney X, and does that disclosure obligation extend beyond a one-time factual report to include Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the relationship creates a disqualifying conflict?
Engineer A's obligation to disclose his committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X before or upon accepting the forensic expert engagement
Disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, accompanied by Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the supervisory relationship creates a conflict material enough to affect the engagement, and treat this disclosure as a continuing obligation requiring updates if the committee relationship materially changes during litigation
Disclose to Attorney X the bare structural facts of the committee relationship — Engineer A's chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — as a one-time act at the outset of engagement, leaving the conflict assessment and engagement decision entirely to Attorney X's professional judgment without Engineer A offering any self-evaluation of the relationship's severity
Disclose the committee relationship to Attorney X and simultaneously notify the engineering society's ethics or governance body of the dual-role situation before proceeding, creating a formal institutional record and allowing the society to exercise its own governance judgment about whether the arrangement is consistent with the committee's integrity — in addition to providing Attorney X with Engineer A's professional self-assessment
Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
Does Engineer A's simultaneous service as chair of the boiler code standards committee and as defense forensic expert against subcommittee member Engineer B create a conflict of interest that requires withdrawal from one role, or is the arrangement permissible provided Engineer A discloses the relationship, exercises independent judgment, and implements structural safeguards — and if the latter, are communication restraints alone sufficient or must Engineer A also recuse from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation?
Whether Engineer A's volunteer committee chairmanship over Engineer B's subcommittee categorically precludes his service as defense forensic expert, or whether the dual role is permissible subject to structural safeguards beyond mere communication restraint
Accept the forensic engagement, fully disclose the committee supervisory relationship to Attorney X, and voluntarily recuse from all committee decisions, evaluations, subcommittee appointments, and agenda actions directly affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation — while refraining from any direct litigation-related communications with Engineer B without direction from legal counsel
Accept the forensic engagement, fully disclose the committee supervisory relationship to Attorney X, and rely on communication restraint alone — refraining from written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without legal counsel direction — without formally recusing from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee, on the grounds that the Board found no clear conflict and that unilateral recusal could itself signal a conflict the Board did not find
Decline the forensic engagement entirely and advise Attorney X to retain a different qualified expert without committee ties to either party, on the grounds that the institutionalized supervisory relationship over the opposing expert creates an irresolvable appearance of impropriety that cannot be adequately managed through disclosure and behavioral constraints alone — preserving both the standards committee's institutional integrity and the litigation's credibility
Does Engineer A's duty to avoid written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation derive from his own independent professional ethics — making it self-executing regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction — or is it properly framed as contingent on legal counsel's guidance, and how must Engineer A ensure that his forensic work product reflects purely technical objectivity without weaponizing his institutional committee authority over Engineer B?
Engineer A's obligation to maintain forensic objectivity and professional dignity toward Engineer B while simultaneously serving as an adversarial expert against him — and whether the Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication obligation is self-executing as an independent professional duty or contingent on Attorney X's direction
Treat the obligation to avoid litigation-related communications with Engineer B as a self-executing independent professional duty — refraining from any such exchanges regardless of whether Attorney X provides direction — while also ensuring that forensic work product is grounded exclusively in technical analysis and does not invoke Engineer A's committee standing to challenge Engineer B's credibility, and treating Engineer B with professional respect in all committee interactions for the duration of the litigation
Follow Attorney X's direction as the governing standard for all communications with Engineer B about the litigation — treating the communication restraint as a litigation-management safeguard coordinated through legal counsel rather than as an independent professional obligation — while relying on the adversarial process and opposing counsel's scrutiny to detect and correct any improper invocation of committee authority in the forensic work product
Treat communication restraint as a self-executing professional obligation and additionally request that Attorney X formally document in the engagement agreement that Engineer A's forensic opinions are rendered solely on technical grounds independent of any committee relationship — creating an explicit record that insulates both the forensic work product and the committee relationship from the appearance that institutional authority influenced adversarial conclusions
What is the scope and completeness of Engineer A's disclosure obligation to Attorney X regarding his committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership, and does that obligation extend beyond a one-time factual report to include Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the relationship creates a disqualifying conflict?
Engineer A's dual-role disclosure obligation: as chair of the boiler code standards committee and as forensic expert retained by Attorney X, Engineer A must determine the scope, timing, and completeness of his disclosure regarding both his own committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership.
Disclose to Attorney X both the committee chairmanship role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, accompanied by Engineer A's own professional assessment of whether the supervisory relationship creates a conflict that could compromise objectivity, and commit to updating Attorney X if the committee relationship materially changes during litigation
Disclose the structural facts of the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X as a one-time act at the outset of formal engagement, without providing a self-assessment of conflict severity, and leave ongoing conflict monitoring to Attorney X's professional judgment as retaining counsel
Disclose the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X and simultaneously notify the engineering society's ethics or governance body of the dual-role situation, creating a formal institutional record and allowing the society to independently assess whether its own governance policies require any action
Does Engineer A's obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety and protect the institutional integrity of the boiler code standards committee require him to formally recuse himself from committee decisions, evaluations, and actions affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation — beyond merely refraining from direct litigation-related communications with Engineer B?
Engineer A's structural role-separation obligation: having accepted the forensic engagement and disclosed the committee relationship, Engineer A must determine whether communication restraint alone adequately manages the appearance of impropriety created by his simultaneous institutional supervisory authority over Engineer B's subcommittee, or whether formal recusal from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee is required for the duration of the litigation.
Formally recuse from all committee decisions, subcommittee appointments, agenda actions, and evaluations directly affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation, document the recusal with the engineering society, and refrain from all litigation-related communications with Engineer B except as directed by Attorney X
Refrain from all written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without direction from Attorney X, while continuing to exercise normal committee chairmanship functions — including oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee — on the grounds that the Board found no clear conflict and that unilateral recusal would signal a conflict the Board did not find
Delegate day-to-day oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee to a designated vice-chair or deputy for the duration of the litigation without formally recusing from the chairmanship role, thereby reducing the practical power imbalance while preserving Engineer A's nominal committee standing and avoiding the signal that a formal recusal would send
Should Engineer A accept the forensic expert engagement for Attorney X given that Engineer B — the opposing expert — is a member of a subcommittee under Engineer A's institutional supervisory authority as committee chair, or does the structural power asymmetry counsel declining the engagement and recommending a conflict-free alternative?
Engineer A's threshold decision on whether to accept the forensic engagement at all: given the pre-existing institutional supervisory relationship between Engineer A as committee chair and Engineer B as subcommittee member, Engineer A must determine whether the Volunteer Standards Role Non-Preclusion principle permits him to proceed with the forensic engagement or whether the structural conflict — even if not 'clear or apparent' under the Board's standard — counsels declining the retention in favor of a conflict-free alternative expert.
Accept the forensic engagement, disclose the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to Attorney X immediately upon discovery, implement communication restraint with Engineer B, and voluntarily recuse from committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation
Decline the forensic engagement on the grounds that the structural supervisory relationship over the opposing expert creates an appearance of impropriety that disclosure and behavioral restraint cannot adequately neutralize, and recommend to Attorney X that a qualified forensic expert without committee ties to Engineer B be retained instead
Accept the forensic engagement conditionally, disclosing the committee relationship to Attorney X and to the engineering society's governance body, and make continued participation contingent on the engineering society's affirmative determination that the dual role does not violate its own conflict-of-interest policies — withdrawing if the society finds the arrangement problematic
How should Engineer A manage the disclosure of his dual role as boiler code standards committee chair and defense forensic expert when the opposing expert, Engineer B, is a member of his own subcommittee?
Engineer A's Dual Role Disclosure Obligation: Committee Chair Serving as Defense Expert Against Subcommittee Member
Disclose to Attorney X both the committee chairmanship role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, treat disclosure as a continuing obligation requiring updates if the committee relationship materially changes during litigation, and proactively notify the engineering society's ethics or governance body of the dual-role situation
Disclose to Attorney X both the committee chairmanship role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership immediately upon discovery, provide a single comprehensive disclosure at the outset of the engagement, and allow Attorney X to assess whether the arrangement is acceptable without further proactive updates unless directly asked
Disclose the committee chairmanship role to Attorney X as a general professional background matter without specifically identifying Engineer B's subcommittee membership, on the basis that the volunteer committee relationship is diffuse and non-coercive and does not rise to the level of a material conflict requiring particularized disclosure
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
What structural constraints should govern Engineer A's communications and institutional conduct toward Engineer B — as both opposing litigation expert and subcommittee member — to protect the integrity of both the forensic engagement and the standards committee?
Engineer A's Non-Communication Obligation: Avoiding Ex Parte Litigation Communications with Engineer B in the Committee Context
Avoid all written and verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation unless specifically authorized by Attorney X, while continuing to exercise full committee chairmanship authority over Engineer B's subcommittee on the basis that the committee and litigation domains are categorically separate
Avoid all written and verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation as a self-executing independent ethical obligation (not contingent on Attorney X's direction), and additionally recuse from any committee decisions, subcommittee evaluations, or agenda actions that specifically and directly affect Engineer B's standing for the duration of the litigation
Treat all committee interactions with Engineer B as governed by standard professional courtesy norms without imposing any special litigation-related communication restrictions, on the basis that the forensic and committee roles are institutionally separate and that imposing additional constraints would itself signal a conflict the Board did not find and could disrupt the committee's normal functioning
County Engineer, Planning Board Member, and Private Consultant
His public role would be compromised by his private financial interest in plan approval
Plans would require approval by the very governmental body on which Doe served
Providing engineering services within his technical competence
Secure private consulting revenue by preparing subdivision plans for a client
Civil/site engineering for subdivision design
Knowledge of local planning and approval processes
Obligation to act as faithful agent and trustee to the public
Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest between private practice and public role
Obligation to avoid situations where private interest could influence public duty
Engineer John Doe, while serving as county engineer and planning board member, chose to prepare subdivision development plans in his capacity as a private consulting engineer, creating a direct conflict with his public roles.
Doe Prepares Private Subdivision Plans → Doe Triple Role Conflict Emerges
John Doe's simultaneous service as county engineer, planning board member, and private consultant creates a conflict
Had Doe declined the private consulting engagement or recused himself from one of his public roles, the triple conflict would not have materialized
Doe's active role as planning board member
Doe's decision to accept private consulting work on subdivision plans subject to county review
Combination of public authority roles + private financial interest in the same matter being reviewed
County Engineer acting in official capacity
Public trust in the impartiality of the county engineer's recommendations would be undermined
The planning board would unknowingly evaluate plans on a biased recommendation
Advance the approval of plans he prepared privately by leveraging his official recommendation authority
BER Case 67-1, 1967, after plan preparation
Obligation to act as faithful agent to the public body he served
Obligation to avoid using public authority to benefit private interests
Obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to relevant parties
As county engineer, John Doe formally recommended approval of the subdivision plans he had privately prepared, directly using his public authority to advance his private work product.
Doe Recommends His Own Plans → Plans Approved Under Conflict
Doe's private subdivision plans receive official approval through a process in which Doe himself participated as recommender
Had Doe recused himself from both the recommendation and the vote, the plans would have been evaluated by disinterested parties, and the approval process would not have been compromised
Absence of recusal or disclosure to other board members
Doe's formal recommendation in his capacity as county engineer
Doe's vote in his capacity as planning board member
Doe's recommendation + Doe's vote + lack of independent scrutiny of the conflict = approval tainted by undisclosed self-interest
Doe transitions from holding multiple roles independently to a state where those roles actively conflict; ethical violation condition is now structurally present regardless of subsequent actions
John Doe's simultaneous service as county engineer, planning board member, and private consultant creates an inherent structural conflict of interest that becomes apparent when his private work intersects with his official duties. This conflict is not a single decision but an ongoing state condition triggered by role accumulation.
Planning Board Member acting in official capacity
Complete collapse of any separation between private interest and public decision-making
Invalidation of the integrity of the public approval process
Public safety and welfare over private gain
Secure final governmental approval of plans he prepared and recommended, completing the approval cycle to benefit his private client and consulting practice
Evaluation of engineering plans for planning purposes
Understanding of public approval standards
BER Case 67-1, 1967, after official recommendation
Duty of faithful and impartial public service
Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest in public decision-making
Obligation to protect the public interest
Obligation to recuse from votes where personal interest exists
As a planning board member, John Doe voted to approve the subdivision plans he had privately prepared and officially recommended, completing a three-role conflict of interest.
Doe Votes to Approve Own Plans → Plans Approved Under Conflict
Doe's private subdivision plans receive official approval through a process in which Doe himself participated as voting board member
Without Doe's vote, the board's deliberation would have proceeded without the conflict-tainted input; approval might still have occurred but through an untainted process
Absence of recusal mechanism or ethics challenge before the vote
Doe's casting of an affirmative vote as planning board member
Doe's undisclosed financial interest in the outcome
Doe's vote as a board member, combined with his prior recommendation as county engineer, provided the decisive institutional weight needed to secure approval
Doe's preparation of subdivision plans (as private consultant) before Doe's recommendation of approval (as county engineer)
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
Doe's preparation of subdivision plans (as private consultant)
Doe's recommendation of approval (as county engineer)
Doe's recommendation of approval (as county engineer) before Doe's vote to approve (as planning board member)
As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans
Doe's vote to approve (as planning board member)
Engineer A Accepts Forensic Expert Engagement
Mechanical engineer, forensic expert, and boiler code committee chair
Potential appearance of conflict given his committee chairmanship over the same technical domain
Risk of organizational conflict if opposing expert Engineer B is discovered to be a subcommittee member under his authority
Exercising professional competence in forensic engineering within his area of expertise
Responding to legitimate professional request for expert services
Honest and objective forensic engineering
Public safety through expert participation in litigation
Engineer A (Present case) (Mechanical engineer, forensic expert, and boiler code committee chair)
Provide forensic engineering expertise to the defense in a pressure vessel explosion personal injury case and fulfill a professional consulting engagement
Forensic engineering investigation methods
Pressure vessel and boiler safety knowledge
Present case, at time of engagement acceptance
Engineer A, in the present case, chose to accept Attorney X's request to conduct a forensic investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness for a boiler manufacturer defendant, despite holding the position of chair of a boiler code standards and safety committee within a professional engineering society.
Engineer A Accepts Forensic Expert Engagement → Engineer A Avoids Ex Parte Litigation Communications with Engineer B
Engineer A must choose to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal communications with Engineer B regarding the litigation matter
Had Engineer A not accepted the forensic engagement, no litigation-based ex parte communication prohibition would apply to their interactions with Engineer B
Engineer A Avoids Ex Parte Litigation Communications with Engineer B
Engineer A's acceptance of the forensic expert role placing them in formal adversarial position
Engineer B's role as opposing expert witness for the plaintiff
The existence of active litigation creating ex parte communication prohibitions
Active litigation + adversarial expert roles on opposing sides + committee relationship creating informal communication channels = sufficient to require explicit avoidance of ex parte contact
Forensic expert, committee chair, and adversary to Engineer B in litigation
Engineer B may perceive committee interactions differently given the adversarial litigation context
Failure to maintain this separation could compromise both the litigation and the committee's integrity
Normal committee governance interactions with Engineer B may need to be carefully managed or limited
Obligation to avoid using organizational authority to improperly influence opposing expert
Obligation to maintain integrity of the litigation process
Obligation to respect the professional role and independence of Engineer B as a subcommittee member
Avoidance of improper influence through positional authority
Integrity and fairness in adversarial professional proceedings
Respect for colleagues' professional independence
Engineer A (Present case) (Forensic expert, committee chair, and adversary to Engineer B in litigation)
Protect the integrity of the litigation process, avoid improper influence on the opposing expert through his organizational authority, and preserve the fairness of both the legal proceedings and the committee governance structure
Coordination with legal counsel on permissible communications
Professional judgment about appropriate boundaries between organizational and adversarial roles
Present case, throughout duration of litigation engagement
Engineer A must choose to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal communications with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel, while still maintaining appropriate professional conduct in his committee chair role.
Engineer A (BER 07-12) serving on State X Environmental Quality Council overlaps Engineer A (BER 07-12) testifying for coal bed methane company
Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council...Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
Engineer A (BER 07-12) serving on State X Environmental Quality Council
Engineer A (BER 07-12) testifying for coal bed methane company
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
Engineer A (BER 07-12) testifying at hearing before newspaper article reporting on hearing
Later, a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
Engineer A (BER 07-12) testifying at hearing
Engineer A Boiler Case Committee Chair Opposing Expert Non-Communication Constraint
Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B is a subcommittee member and the opposing expert witness in the same litigation. The shared committee relationship creates a structural communication risk requiring affirmative prohibition of informal litigation-related communication.
Standards Committee Chair Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending personal injury litigation without direction from legal counsel, arising from Engineer A's role as chair of the committee on which Engineer B serves as a subcommittee member.
Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
Throughout the pendency of the personal injury litigation
Engineer A Boiler Case Forensic Expert Objectivity Non-Advocate Constraint
Engineer A has been retained as defense expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion. The Board noted that professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform forensic services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in professional reports regardless of their role.
Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to render forensic opinions on the pressure vessel explosion based solely on independent technical analysis as a mechanical and safety engineer, and must not adopt the role of an advocate for the boiler manufacturer defendant or align technical opinions with the adversarial interests of the retaining party.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering forensic expert standards
Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
Throughout the forensic expert witness engagement
Engineer A Boiler Case Honesty Integrity Forensic Report Constraint
The Board emphasized that professional engineers called upon as forensic engineering experts have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in professional reports regardless of their role.
Engineer A is constrained to perform forensic expert services with honesty and integrity, being truthful and honest in professional reports, regardless of whether performing work in the private sector or as a member of an organization with a public role such as a professional or technical society.
Engineer A Boiler Case Pre-Acceptance Conflict Assessment Constraint
Engineer A was solicited by Attorney X to serve as defense expert in a pressure vessel explosion case. Engineer B, a subcommittee member within Engineer A's committee, serves as the opposing expert. Engineer A was required to assess this conflict before accepting.
Expert Witness Engagement Conflict Assessment Pre-Acceptance Constraint
Before accepting the forensic expert witness engagement from Attorney X, Engineer A was constrained to conduct a thorough conflict of interest assessment identifying his committee chair role, Engineer B's subcommittee membership, and any other professional relationships between himself and Engineer B that could create an appearance of compromised impartiality.
Before accepting the forensic expert witness engagement
Unless there is some other direct business or professional relationship or history that Engineer A may have had that is not revealed under the facts, there does not appear to be any conflict.
Engineer A Boiler Case Volunteer Role Non-Preclusion of Expert Service Constraint
Engineer A is a volunteer chair of a technical society standards-setting committee. The Board found that absent other direct business or professional relationships, the volunteer committee role does not create a disqualifying conflict of interest for forensic expert service.
Volunteer Standards Committee Role Non-Preclusion of Expert Witness Service Constraint
Engineer A's volunteer service as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee does not per se preclude him from serving as a forensic expert witness in the pressure vessel explosion litigation, provided he fully discloses the committee relationship to Attorney X, exercises independent professional judgment, and refrains from litigation-related communications with Engineer B without legal counsel direction.
In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
At the time of accepting and throughout the forensic expert witness engagement
It would appear that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair.
Engineer A Boiler Forensic Engineering Domain Competence
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Forensic Engineering Competence
Engineer A possessed domain-specific forensic engineering competence in boiler and pressure vessel systems — as a mechanical and forensic engineer with expertise in safety engineering — enabling him to conduct forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render defensible expert opinions independent of his committee chair role.
Engineer A retained as defense forensic expert to investigate a pressure vessel explosion in personal injury litigation, drawing on mechanical and forensic engineering expertise.
The BER's recognition that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair, and that his opinion may be informed by his experience in working with safety codes and standards.
Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness)
While Engineer A's opinion may be informed somewhat by his experience in working with safety codes and standards, presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
Engineer A Boiler and Pressure Vessel Forensic Engineering Competence
Engineer A possesses expert-level forensic engineering competence in mechanical engineering — specifically boiler and pressure vessel systems — enabling investigation of the pressure vessel explosion, analysis of applicable boiler code standards, and rendering of defensible expert opinions in the personal injury litigation.
Engineer A's mechanical engineering expertise and committee chairmanship qualify him to investigate the pressure vessel explosion and serve as expert witness for the defense.
Engineer A's role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as a forensic engineering expert with mechanical engineering expertise, demonstrating domain authority sufficient to be retained as expert witness in pressure vessel explosion litigation.
Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
Engineer A Client Relationship Established with Defense
From Attorney X's request through acceptance or rejection of the engagement
Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
Engineer A's nascent professional relationship with Attorney X and the boiler manufacturer as defense client
Formal acceptance or declination of the engagement
Attorney X requests Engineer A to conduct investigation and serve as expert witness
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Committee Chair Expert Witness Instance
Engineer A's simultaneous roles as committee chair over Engineer B and as opposing expert witness against Engineer B in the same litigation create a direct conflict of interest requiring avoidance or mitigation under the NSPE Code
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
Engineer A is constrained by the NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest avoidance provisions from proceeding with the expert witness engagement without addressing the conflict arising from the supervisory committee relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — requiring either full disclosure to Attorney X, structural recusal from committee authority over Engineer B, or declination of the engagement.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4 and conflict of interest provisions; BER Case 19-3
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
From the moment Engineer A learns of Engineer B's committee membership through the conclusion of the litigation
Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Credential Transparency Failure
Expert Witness Credential and Affiliation Transparent Presentation Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to transparently present his credentials and affiliation at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing — presenting DOE job title credentials while testifying as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company, without disclosing the private retaining party or compensation arrangement.
Engineer A testified at a state environmental quality council hearing as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company while presenting DOE job title credentials, leading to a newspaper report identifying him as a 'US DOE researcher.'
The BER's finding that it was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described, noting that his use of the DOE PowerPoint presentation was entirely inappropriate and that it was not entirely clear from the facts on whose behalf Engineer A was testifying.
Engineer A (DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness)
Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X. Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
A newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business.
Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described.
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Private Consulting Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A served as a DOE employee in the coal bed methane division while simultaneously providing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies. The Board found this created a clear conflict of interest making it virtually impossible to work as a part-time consultant in the same area.
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from providing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies while employed by the US Department of Energy in its coal bed methane division, because the identity of subject matter between the governmental role and the private consulting engagement created an irresolvable conflict of interest breaching his faithful agent duty to his governmental employer.
As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
Engineer A DOE Credential Conflation Testimony Non-Deception Constraint
Engineer A testified at a State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits. His PowerPoint listed his DOE job title; he never disclosed his private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies. A newspaper subsequently reported a 'US DOE researcher' testified, when in fact his attendance was paid for by the coal bed methane company.
Government Employment Credential Non-Conflation in Private Testimony Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from presenting his US DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation while testifying as a privately retained expert witness for a coal bed methane company, because such presentation created a misleading impression that he was testifying in an official governmental capacity rather than as a private consultant.
Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
During the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
It was entirely inappropriate, since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the US DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
Engineer A DOT Airport Consulting Interrelated Domain Conflict Constraint
Engineer A served as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans. He was approached by his former consulting firm to serve part-time seeking municipal airport design contracts. The Board found the interrelated nature of highways and airports created a foreseeable conflict.
Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from accepting part-time private consulting work for a firm seeking municipal airport design contracts while employed as a State DOT traffic engineer, because the interrelated nature of highway and airport domains — and Engineer A's relations with the same municipalities in both capacities — created a foreseeable conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.
The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities.
Throughout the period of State DOT employment
Based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented.
Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
There are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked, and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
Engineer A DOT Airport Consulting Public Resource Non-Use Constraint
The Board cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
Engineer A was constrained from using public resources — including State DOT time, equipment, contacts, or information — in the performance of any private consulting work, as cautioned by the Board in BER Case 02-8.
The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his proposed part-time private consulting role for municipal airport design created a foreseeable conflict of interest with his governmental traffic engineering role, due to the interrelated nature of highway and airport infrastructure and shared municipal relationships.
Engineer A served as a state DOT traffic engineer while being approached by his former firm to perform part-time private consulting for municipalities on airport design.
The BER's finding that it was unethical for Engineer A to serve in the dual role, noting that highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere, and that clear ethical appearance issues would need to be addressed.
Engineer A (DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consultant)
Clear ethical appearance issues would presumably need to be addressed.
Engineer A Discloses Committee Role to Attorney X
Forensic expert and boiler code committee chair
Attorney X may reconsider the engagement or seek different expert
Disclosure may complicate litigation strategy for the defense
Transparency may reduce Engineer A's competitive advantage as an expert
Obligation to act as faithful agent to the client with full candor
Obligation to be honest and transparent in professional relationships
Obligation to fully disclose conflicts of interest or potential conflicts to retaining counsel
Faithful agency to client with transparency
Full and timely disclosure of material relationships
Engineer A (Present case) (Forensic expert and boiler code committee chair)
Ensure Attorney X is fully informed of the organizational relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B so that informed decisions can be made about the engagement and any necessary legal or ethical steps
Clear communication of organizational relationships to legal counsel
Professional judgment about conflict identification
Present case, upon discovery of Engineer B's subcommittee membership
Engineer A is obligated to, and must choose to, fully disclose to Attorney X his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee and the fact that opposing expert Engineer B is a member of one of his subcommittees, as required by his ethical duties of transparency.
Engineer A Discloses Committee Role to Attorney X → Conflict Disclosure Record Established
When Engineer A discloses their committee chair role to Attorney X, a formal record of the conflict is established
Without Engineer A's disclosure, no formal conflict record would exist; Attorney X would proceed without knowledge of the relationship, and the conflict would remain hidden and unmanaged
Attorney X receiving and acknowledging the disclosure
Engineer A's act of making the disclosure to Attorney X
The disclosure being sufficiently complete to document the nature and scope of the committee relationship
Complete disclosure of committee chair role + Attorney X's receipt = sufficient to establish a formal conflict record enabling informed client decision-making
Engineer A Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that simultaneously serving as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation governed by those standards created an appearance of impropriety requiring proactive disclosure and management — even where no actual conflict existed — including recognizing the specific appearance concern arising from the supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B.
Engineer A simultaneously chairs the boiler code standards committee and serves as defense forensic expert in litigation involving boiler safety, with opposing expert Engineer B serving on his committee.
The BER's identification of Engineer A's critical obligations to disclose the dual role and manage the committee-litigation interface, and its distinction of the present case from earlier cases involving more direct conflicts.
Engineer A should be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts.
Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
Engineer A Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that simultaneously chairing the boiler code standards and safety committee — which governs the very standards at issue in the pressure vessel explosion litigation — and serving as defense expert witness in that litigation creates an appearance of impropriety requiring affirmative management and disclosure.
Engineer A's dual role as committee chair and defense expert witness in boiler safety litigation creates an appearance of impropriety that must be recognized, disclosed, and managed.
The factual situation in which Engineer A chairs the committee governing boiler safety standards while being retained as defense expert in litigation involving those standards, with the opposing expert being a member of Engineer A's committee.
Engineer A Expert Witness Engagement Pre-Acceptance Conflict Assessment Constraint Instance
Engineer A was solicited by Attorney X to serve as defense expert before Engineer A had identified the conflict arising from Engineer B's membership on Engineer A's committee; the pre-acceptance conflict assessment obligation required Engineer A to identify this relationship before accepting
Engineer A is constrained from accepting the expert witness engagement from Attorney X without first conducting a thorough pre-acceptance conflict assessment — including identifying all professional relationships with the opposing expert Engineer B, including their shared committee membership and supervisory relationship — and disclosing all identified conflicts to Attorney X before formal engagement acceptance.
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest avoidance provisions; BER Case 19-3
Prior to formal acceptance of the expert witness engagement
Engineer A Forensic Expert Objectivity Non-Advocate Constraint Instance
Engineer A has been retained by defense counsel Attorney X to investigate a pressure vessel explosion and potentially serve as expert witness; Engineer A must maintain objectivity and independence as a forensic expert rather than functioning as an advocate for the defense
Engineer A is constrained from adopting the role of an advocate for the boiler manufacturer defense in the personal injury litigation — and must instead render forensic expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment — prohibiting Engineer A from aligning technical conclusions with the adversarial interests of the defense regardless of the retaining relationship with Attorney X.
NSPE Code of Ethics professional independence provisions; BER Case 19-3
Throughout the forensic investigation and any expert witness testimony
Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment, independent of Attorney X's litigation interests and the boiler manufacturer's defense strategy.
Engineer A has been retained by defense attorney Attorney X to investigate a pressure vessel explosion and potentially serve as expert witness on behalf of the boiler manufacturer in a personal injury case.
Engineer A's role as a forensic engineering expert with mechanical engineering expertise, retained to investigate a pressure vessel explosion and potentially testify as an expert witness, requiring maintenance of objectivity despite defense retention.
Engineer A Qualified to Perform Forensic Expert Role
Ongoing — Engineer A holds expertise in mechanical engineering and forensic engineering
Engineer A's professional competence in mechanical engineering and forensic engineering relevant to pressure vessel explosion investigation
Attorney X's request based on Engineer A's established expertise
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Dual Role Disclosure to Attorney X
Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
Engineer A was required to possess and exercise the capability to fully disclose to Attorney X both his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee and the fact that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that committee.
Engineer A retained as defense forensic expert while chairing the committee on which opposing expert Engineer B serves as a subcommittee member.
The BER's identification of Engineer A's obligation to fully disclose to Attorney X his committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership before proceeding with the forensic engagement.
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Mechanical engineering and forensic engineering', 'committee_role': 'Chair, boiler code standards and safety committee', 'litigation_role': 'Defense expert witness (retained, not yet confirmed)'}
Engineer A is a mechanical and forensic engineering PE who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee and has been retained by defense attorney to investigate and potentially testify as expert witness in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion, while the plaintiff's expert (Engineer B) is a member of a subcommittee under Engineer A's committee authority.
{'type': 'committee_chair_over', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness'}
{'type': 'opposing_expert_to', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X Defense Attorney'}
has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure Constraint Instance
Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B, the plaintiff's expert, is a member of a subcommittee within that same committee; Engineer A has been asked by Attorney X to serve as defense expert in personal injury litigation involving a pressure vessel explosion
Standards Committee Opposing Expert Dual Role Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from accepting the expert witness engagement from Attorney X without first fully disclosing to Attorney X both Engineer A's role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and Engineer B's membership on a subcommittee within that same committee — the disclosure must be complete enough to enable Attorney X to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with Engineer A as defense expert.
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions; BER Case 19-3
At the time of engagement acceptance and throughout the duration of the expert witness engagement
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Objectivity
Forensic Expert Witness Honesty and Integrity in Report Preparation Capability
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to perform forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions with honesty and integrity, based solely on independent technical analysis as a mechanical and forensic engineer, independent of his committee chair role or the retaining party's litigation interests.
Engineer A retained as defense forensic expert in personal injury case involving pressure vessel explosion, while serving as volunteer chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee.
The BER's statement that Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair, and that he would exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role.
Presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion.
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication with Engineer B
Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Capability
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that his committee supervisory relationship with Engineer B — who serves as a subcommittee member and opposing expert — required him to refrain from any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
Engineer A chairs the committee on which opposing expert Engineer B serves; both are simultaneously engaged as opposing forensic experts in the same personal injury litigation.
The BER's identification of Engineer A's obligation to be respectful of Engineer B and not engage in any written or verbal exchanges regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication with Engineer B Litigation Constraint Instance
Engineer A and Engineer B are opposing expert witnesses in personal injury litigation while simultaneously standing in a supervisory committee relationship — Engineer A as chair, Engineer B as subcommittee member — creating structural communication risks that require affirmative prohibition of informal litigation-related communication
Standards Committee Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending personal injury litigation — including any discussion of the technical merits, expert opinions, or litigation strategy — without explicit direction from legal counsel, arising from the shared committee relationship in which Engineer A chairs the committee on which Engineer B serves as a subcommittee member.
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest and independence provisions; BER Case 19-3
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Volunteer Role Conflict Assessment
Volunteer Standards Role Forensic Expert Conflict Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to assess whether his volunteer role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee created an impermissible conflict with his forensic expert engagement, correctly determining that absent other direct business or professional relationships, the volunteer role did not per se preclude forensic service.
Engineer A was retained by Attorney X as a forensic expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion, while simultaneously serving as volunteer chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee.
The BER's determination that Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert did not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest, distinguishing the present case from earlier cases involving governmental employment conflicts.
Engineer A Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that simultaneously chairing the boiler code standards and safety committee and serving as defense expert witness in litigation where a committee subcommittee member (Engineer B) is the opposing expert creates a dual role conflict requiring full disclosure to Attorney X.
Engineer A chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee and has been retained by Attorney X as defense expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion, while Engineer B — the plaintiff's expert — is a member of a subcommittee within Engineer A's committee.
Recognition that Engineer B's membership on a subcommittee within Engineer A's chaired committee creates a supervisory relationship that must be disclosed to retaining counsel Attorney X before or at the time of engagement.
Engineer A Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that Engineer B's role as opposing expert in the pending litigation requires Engineer A to refrain from any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the litigation without direction from legal counsel, notwithstanding their ongoing committee relationship.
Engineer A chairs the committee of which Engineer B is a subcommittee member, and Engineer B is simultaneously the plaintiff's forensic expert in the pressure vessel explosion litigation in which Engineer A serves as defense expert.
Recognition that the committee chair-subcommittee member relationship with Engineer B, combined with Engineer B's role as opposing expert, creates a communication restraint obligation that must be honored to preserve litigation integrity and standards process integrity.
Engineer A chairing boiler code standards and safety committee overlaps Engineer A serving as forensic expert for Attorney X
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee...has been requested by Attorney X...to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
Engineer A chairing boiler code standards and safety committee
Engineer A serving as forensic expert for Attorney X
Engineer A's disclosure to Attorney X before Engineer A's engagement as expert witness
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee...and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member, implying disclosure must precede or accompany engagement
Engineer A's engagement as expert witness
Engineer A's employment with State DOT overlaps Engineer A's proposed part-time consulting for former firm
Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis...while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
Engineer A's proposed part-time consulting for former firm
Engineer A's prior consulting work (airport design) before Engineer A's employment with State DOT
Prior to Engineer A's employment with the State DOT's traffic engineering division, Engineer A performed airport design through a consulting firm
Engineer A's prior consulting work (airport design)
Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Forensic engineering / boiler and pressure vessel', 'committee_role': "Member, technical subcommittee under Engineer A's committee", 'litigation_role': "Plaintiff's expert witness"}
Engineer B is the plaintiff's forensic engineering expert in the personal injury case involving the pressure vessel explosion, and is also a member of a technical subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A (the opposing defense expert), creating a dual institutional-adversarial relationship.
{'type': 'opposing_expert_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': "Plaintiff's Attorney (implied)"}
{'type': 'subcommittee_member_under', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness'}
Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness
the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness Conflict Awareness
Engineer B, as a member of a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A, possesses — or should possess — the capability to recognize that simultaneously serving as plaintiff's forensic expert in litigation where Engineer A (the committee chair) serves as opposing defense expert creates a dual role conflict that may require disclosure to retaining plaintiff's counsel.
Engineer B is both a subcommittee member under Engineer A's committee chairmanship and the plaintiff's forensic expert in the same litigation where Engineer A serves as defense expert.
Engineer B's simultaneous membership on Engineer A's committee subcommittee and role as plaintiff's forensic expert in the pressure vessel explosion litigation.
Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Opposing Expert
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'volunteer_role': 'Member, technical subcommittee within boiler code standards and safety committee', 'litigation_role': 'Forensic expert witness on opposing side from Engineer A'}
Serves as a member of a technical subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A, and is simultaneously retained as a forensic expert witness on the opposing side of the same personal injury litigation, bearing obligations to avoid ex parte communications with Engineer A about the pending litigation.
{'type': 'committee_subordinate_to', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'opposing_expert_to', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
Engineer B Subcommittee Membership Discovered
Engineer A's professional relationships now include a supervisory/authority relationship with Engineer B in committee context simultaneously with an adversarial relationship in litigation; both relationships are compromised by the other's existence; a structural conflict condition is now active
Present case, upon Engineer A's review of the engagement
Engineer A discovers that Engineer B, who serves as the plaintiff's expert witness in the boiler litigation, is also a member of a subcommittee that Engineer A chairs, creating an automatic dual-relationship condition with implications for both the litigation and the committee's integrity.
Engineer B Subcommittee Membership Discovered → Engineer A Discloses Committee Role to Attorney X
Engineer A discovers that Engineer B serves on a subcommittee chaired by Engineer A, triggering the obligation to disclose the committee chair role to Attorney X
Had Engineer B not been a member of Engineer A's subcommittee, no committee-based conflict would exist and no disclosure on this ground would be required
Engineer A's acceptance of the forensic expert engagement placing them in adversarial relationship with Engineer B
Engineer A's pre-existing role as chairman of the relevant committee
Engineer B's membership on Engineer A's subcommittee
Discovery of Engineer B's subcommittee membership + Engineer A's chair role + active litigation adversarial relationship = sufficient to trigger mandatory disclosure obligation
Engineer B serving on subcommittee chaired by Engineer A overlaps Engineer B serving as plaintiff's forensic expert
Engineer B serving on subcommittee chaired by Engineer A
Engineer B serving as plaintiff's forensic expert
Engineer Doe County Engineer Planning Board Private Plan Approval Prohibition Constraint
Engineer Doe served as county engineer, county planning board member, and private consulting engineer simultaneously. He prepared subdivision plans privately, then recommended and voted to approve those same plans in his governmental capacity.
Public Official Private Plan Approval Participation Prohibition Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained from recommending and voting to approve subdivision plans that he had prepared in his private consulting capacity, because his dual role as county engineer and planning board member created an irresolvable conflict of interest that violated the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
Throughout the period of dual public-private employment
[Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.
Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
Professional engineering ethics bodies and bar association guidance
Engineer A in determining disclosure and recusal obligations
Governs Engineer A's obligation to disclose to Attorney X the professional relationship between Engineer A (as committee chair) and Engineer B (as subcommittee member serving as opposing expert), and to evaluate whether this relationship creates a disqualifying conflict or appearance of partiality
Professional engineering ethics practice
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in specifying Engineer A's affirmative disclosure obligations
Professional norm requiring Engineer A to fully disclose his standards committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to retaining counsel, and prohibiting ex parte communications with Engineer B regarding pending litigation
Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
National Academy of Forensic Engineers and professional engineering bodies
Forensic Engineering Credential and Practice Standard
the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B
Engineer A and Engineer B in their respective forensic expert roles
Governs the professional obligations of Engineer A and Engineer B as forensic engineering experts, including standards for independence, objectivity, and conflict management in adversarial proceedings
John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Self-Recusal Failure
Dual Role Planning Board Engineer Self-Recusal Capability
John Doe failed to exercise the capability to recognize and act on the conflict arising from preparing private consulting subdivision plans that would come before the county planning board on which he served — failing to recuse from both the recommendation and voting functions, and failing to recognize that the conflict existed even at the recommendation stage by virtue of his county engineer responsibilities.
John Doe prepared subdivision plans as a private consulting engineer, then as county engineer recommended approval of those plans to the county planning board, and as a planning board member voted to approve them.
The BER's finding that Doe's actions were unethical and in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics, and that he would have been in violation even if he had not been a member of the county planning board, by virtue of his employment as county engineer and the responsibility to submit plans with recommendation.
John Doe (County Engineer Planning Board Member)
'[Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.'
Engineer moves from single-employer state to potential dual-role state; conflict risk condition is activated even before acceptance; obligation to screen precedes any decision to accept
BER Case 02-8 (2002), at time of approach
When the state DOT traffic engineer is approached about part-time consulting for a former firm, the potential for conflicts at the municipal level becomes immediately apparent as an automatic consequence of the role combination, before any work is actually performed.
National Society of Professional Engineers
professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
his operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's dual roles as standards committee chair and forensic expert witness
Primary normative authority establishing obligations of honesty, integrity, faithful agency, and conflict of interest avoidance for professional engineers serving in dual public-private roles and as forensic experts
Engineer A in evaluating whether to accept the expert witness engagement
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding conflict of interest disclosure, impartiality in expert witness service, and professional conduct in adversarial proceedings involving a subordinate committee member as opposing expert
Official approval record now exists for plans prepared by the approving official; approval is legally and ethically suspect; downstream reliance on approval creates compounding harm potential
BER Case 67-1 (1967), subsequent to plan preparation
Doe's private subdivision plans receive official approval through a process in which Doe himself participates both as recommending engineer and as voting board member, completing the full cycle of conflicted self-dealing. This outcome is the realized harm of the structural conflict.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
This Board has examined various situations, including those involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time.
Engineer A also has an obligation to be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts
Engineer A should be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in tracing the evolution of dual-role conflict analysis across precedents
Professional norms governing engineers in dual public-private roles, applied through BER Cases 67-1, 02-8, and 07-12 to establish the baseline conflict of interest analysis before distinguishing the present case
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
Does Engineer A's authority as committee chair over Engineer B's subcommittee create a power imbalance that could subtly compromise Engineer B's independent technical judgment in future standards work, even if no direct litigation communication occurs?
Should Engineer A consider recusing himself from any committee decisions, evaluations, or actions affecting Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation, even though the Board did not explicitly require this?
Does the Board's conclusion that no 'clear or apparent' conflict of interest exists adequately account for the reputational harm to the boiler code standards committee itself if the public or legal community perceives that its chair is simultaneously serving as a paid adversarial expert against one of its own members?
At what point in the engagement process was Engineer A obligated to discover and disclose Engineer B's subcommittee membership — before accepting the retention, at the moment of discovery, or only upon formal engagement — and does a delay in disclosure itself constitute an ethical violation?
Does the principle of Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation — which holds that volunteer committee service should not preclude legitimate professional engagements — conflict with the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance principle when Engineer A's committee chairmanship places him in a supervisory relationship over the opposing expert in active litigation?
How does the Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings principle — requiring Engineer A to remain objective and not merely serve the defense's interests — tension with the Honesty principle requiring full disclosure to Attorney X, given that complete transparency about the committee relationship might strategically benefit or harm the defense client?
Does the Professional Dignity principle — requiring Engineer A to treat Engineer B respectfully as a subcommittee member — conflict with the Objectivity principle when Engineer A must render a forensic opinion that directly contradicts or undermines Engineer B's expert conclusions in the same litigation?
Does the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution principle — which recognizes that disclosure obligations intensify as the supervisory relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B becomes more apparent — conflict with the Standards Committee Role Disclosure principle's relatively static framing of disclosure as a one-time act to Attorney X, potentially leaving ongoing or evolving conflicts undisclosed throughout the litigation?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty of full disclosure to Attorney X extend beyond merely reporting the structural facts of the committee relationship, to also proactively assessing and communicating whether that relationship creates a categorical conflict of interest that should preclude his service as a forensic expert altogether?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's willingness to serve as an adversarial expert against Engineer B — a person over whom Engineer A holds institutional supervisory authority as committee chair — reflect the professional integrity and impartiality that a virtuous forensic engineer should embody, even if no formal rule explicitly prohibits the arrangement?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists adequately weigh the downstream risks to the integrity of the boiler code standards committee itself — specifically, whether Engineer A's adversarial posture toward Engineer B in litigation could chill Engineer B's independent technical contributions to the subcommittee and thereby harm the broader public safety mission of the standards body?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty to avoid conflicts of interest under the NSPE Code create an independent obligation to recuse himself from committee decisions or proceedings that involve Engineer B for the duration of the litigation, regardless of whether Attorney X is satisfied with the disclosure Engineer A provides?
If Engineer A had discovered Engineer B's subcommittee membership only after submitting his initial forensic report to Attorney X rather than before accepting the engagement, would his ethical obligations have shifted from disclosure to mandatory withdrawal, and what standard should govern that determination?
If Engineer A, rather than merely disclosing the committee relationship to Attorney X, had also proactively notified the engineering society's ethics or governance body about the dual-role situation before proceeding, would that additional step have better protected the integrity of the standards committee and satisfied a higher standard of professional transparency?
What if Attorney X, upon receiving Engineer A's disclosure about the committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership, had decided to retain a different forensic expert with no committee ties — would the Board's ethical analysis suggest that this outcome would have been preferable, and if so, does that implication undercut the Board's conclusion that no clear conflict of interest exists?
If Engineer A had chosen to recuse himself from all committee oversight of Engineer B's subcommittee for the duration of the litigation rather than simply avoiding direct communication with Engineer B about the case, would that structural separation have eliminated the appearance of impropriety more effectively than the communication restraint the Board recommends?
Standards Committee Conflict of Interest Framework - Boiler Code Committee
Engineering society standards development organization governance policies
Standards Committee Conflict of Interest and Ethics Policies
Standards Committee Conflict of Interest Framework
Engineer A in assessing whether the committee chair-subcommittee member relationship creates a disqualifying conflict for expert witness service
Governs the specific conflict arising from Engineer A's role as chair of the boiler code standards committee while Engineer B — a member of a subcommittee within that committee — serves as the opposing forensic expert, raising questions about hierarchical influence, appearance of partiality, and committee governance integrity
Current engineering society governance policies
Professional engineering ethics practice and NSPE BER analysis
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in distinguishing the present case from prior dual-role precedents
Governing framework for analyzing whether Engineer A's simultaneous role as boiler code standards committee chair and forensic expert witness in boiler-related litigation creates an impermissible conflict of interest requiring disclosure or recusal
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.85
Attorney X is constrained from proceeding with Engineer A's engagement as defense expert without receiving full disclosure of Engineer A's committee chairmanship and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — the absence of such disclosure would leave Attorney X unable to make an informed assessment of the conflict and its potential impact on the integrity of the expert witness engagement.
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
Attorney X's receipt of full disclosure enables an informed decision about whether to proceed with Engineer A, seek a different expert, or take other steps to manage the professional relationship between the two experts
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.77
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
No legitimate competing principle justified the misleading credential presentation; the obligation of accurate credential disclosure was absolute in this context
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Disclosure obligation prevailed; no legitimate interest in confidentiality of retaining party identity justified the omission in a public regulatory proceeding
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.72
The potential for conflict was deemed sufficient to render the dual engagement unethical even with employer awareness, because the functional linkage between domains could not be adequately managed
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.7
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.85
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
Disclosure is the primary ethical response; recusal may be required if, after disclosure, the parties determine that the conflict cannot be adequately managed — but the principle does not mandate recusal as the automatic first response
Full disclosure to Attorney X of both the committee chairmanship role and the supervisory relationship over Engineer B is the minimum required response — whether the appearance of impropriety is sufficiently serious to require recusal from the engagement or from the committee role is a judgment that Attorney X and Engineer A must make together after full disclosure
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.82
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.78
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.75
The engineer's objectivity obligation is not subordinated by the adversarial context of the litigation — Engineer A must render the same quality of objective technical opinion that would be rendered in a non-adversarial engineering investigation
Engineer A's non-advocate status means that Attorney X cannot legitimately expect Engineer A to suppress adverse technical findings or shade opinions in favor of the manufacturer — the engagement is for objective forensic expertise, not partisan advocacy
Objectivity in this context requires Engineer A to maintain complete independence from the retaining party's advocacy interests and to ensure that the committee supervisory relationship over Engineer B does not create either actual bias or the appearance of bias in the forensic analysis
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
Engineer A is constrained to fully disclose to Attorney X both his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee and the fact that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that committee, before proceeding with the forensic expert witness engagement.
Disclosure to Attorney X is the mechanism that allows the conflict to be assessed and managed without requiring automatic recusal — the principle does not prohibit the engagement but requires full transparency about the professional relationship
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
Disclosure obligation to retaining counsel prevails; the professional relationship information is not confidential and its disclosure serves the integrity of the proceeding
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
Honesty takes precedence over any temptation to accept the engagement without disclosure — the engagement relationship itself must be founded on complete and accurate representation of Engineer A's professional relationships
Objectivity is preserved through independent judgment; committee experience informs but does not control the forensic opinion
Independence of judgment is preserved because no direct business relationship exists; committee expertise informs but does not compromise forensic opinion
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
Engineer A's duty to provide objective technical expertise prevails over any pressure to advocate for the defense position; his committee role makes this obligation more salient, not less
Professional dignity and litigation integrity both point in the same direction: no direct communication about the litigation without counsel direction
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
Disclosure and independent judgment preservation are deemed sufficient to manage the potential organizational relationship; automatic recusal is not required
Disclosure enables the conflict to be managed through informed consent rather than requiring automatic recusal — consistent with the profession's evolved disclosure-and-management approach to conflicts of interest
Engineer A is constrained from simultaneously exercising supervisory committee authority over Engineer B — as chair of the committee on which Engineer B serves — while serving as the opposing expert witness against Engineer B in active personal injury litigation, without either recusing from committee supervisory functions affecting Engineer B during the litigation period or declining the expert witness engagement, as the hierarchical supervisory relationship creates an irresolvable appearance of compromised impartiality that cannot be mitigated by disclosure alone.
The conflict was irresolvable; the Board found the conduct unethical regardless of whether Doe was a planning board member, because even the county engineer role alone created an impermissible conflict with private plan preparation
Engineer A's professional supervisory relationship over Engineer B — as committee chair over a subcommittee member — constitutes a material professional interest that must be disclosed to Attorney X before Engineer A accepts the expert witn
Engineer A, as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee, is obligated to disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's own committee chairmanship role and the fact that opposing expert Engineer B serves as a member of a technical
Engineer A, as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee, must disclose to Attorney X both his own committee chairmanship and the fact that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of Engineer A's technical
Engineer A must render forensic opinions based on independent technical assessment as a mechanical and safety engineer, not as an advocate for the position his committee work may have established, maintaining objectivity that is informed bu
Engineer A must conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment, without allowing the defense attorney's litigation interests, the m
Engineer A, despite being retained by defense counsel Attorney X, must maintain the role of objective technical expert rather than advocate for the boiler manufacturer, rendering forensic opinions based on technical evidence rather than the
Engineer A's role as forensic expert for Attorney X requires him to provide objective technical expertise as a mechanical and safety engineer, not to advocate for the defense position — his committee expertise informs his analysis but does
Engineer A's committee chairmanship over Engineer B's subcommittee creates a professional supervisory relationship that must be managed with respect for Engineer B's professional dignity and standing — Engineer A must not use the committee
Engineer A must treat Engineer B with professional respect in their shared committee context and must not engage in written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel, thereby prese
Engineer A's simultaneous role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation involving boiler safety standards — combined with the supervisory committee relationship over opposing exp
Engineer A is obligated to be fully honest with Attorney X about the professional relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — including the committee supervisory relationship — rather than accepting the engagement without disclosing fact
Engineer A's volunteer standards committee role does not automatically bar forensic expert service; the profession's evolved approach requires disclosure and management of the potential organizational relationship rather than automatic recu
Engineer A's committee supervisory relationship over opposing expert Engineer B constitutes a potential conflict of interest that, under the profession's evolved disclosure-and-management standard, must be disclosed to Attorney X rather tha
Engineer A's forensic opinions as a mechanical and safety engineer are to be rendered independently of his committee chair role — informed by that experience but not controlled by it — and the absence of direct business conflicts means the
Engineer A's failure to accurately represent his role as a paid consultant for coal bed methane companies — while displaying DOE credentials — violated the fundamental obligation to make only truthful and accurate representations of profess
Engineer A's failure to disclose that his testimony was funded by a coal bed methane company — while presenting DOE credentials — constituted a failure to disclose a material financial interest in the outcome of his testimony, rendering his
Engineer A's use of DOE job title credentials in his PowerPoint presentation while testifying as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company — without clearly disclosing his consulting role — created a misleading impression of official
Engineer A's simultaneous role as a DOE employee in coal bed methane research and as a paid consultant for coal bed methane companies created an appearance of impropriety that was compounded by his failure to disclose the consulting role —
Engineer A's simultaneous service as a state DOT traffic engineer and private airport consultant for municipalities created a conflict of interest because highways and airports are functionally linked, and his governmental role with municip
John Doe's simultaneous roles as private consulting engineer (preparing subdivision plans), county engineer (recommending those plans), and planning board member (voting to approve those plans) created an unmistakable appearance of impropri
Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B in order to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with Engineer A as t
Engineer A is obligated to fully disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's own role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and Engineer B's role as a member of a subcommittee within that same committee, so that Attorney X
Engineer A was obligated to fully disclose to Attorney X: (1) his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, and (2) that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of
Engineer A was obligated to decline the part-time private consulting engagement with his former firm for municipal airport design work while employed as a state DOT traffic engineer, because the highway and airport domains are sufficiently
John Doe was obligated to refrain from simultaneously preparing subdivision plans as a private consulting engineer, recommending those same plans as county engineer, and voting to approve those plans as a planning board member — each role c
Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — including Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee members
Attorney X, as retaining counsel, was entitled to receive full disclosure from Engineer A of both Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership, so that Attorney X could assess potential conflicts, manage the li
Engineer A must recognize that simultaneously serving as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation where the opposing expert is a subcommittee member creates an appearance of impropr
Engineer A must refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending personal injury litigation without the direction of Attorney X, so that the integrity of both the expert witness role and the sta
Engineer A was obligated to render forensic opinions on the pressure vessel explosion based on independent technical analysis as a mechanical and safety engineer, exercising independent judgment and discretion rather than acting as an advoc
Engineer A must conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and independent professional judgment, functioning as an objective assistant to the trier of f
Engineer A was obligated to perform forensic expert services with honesty and integrity, being truthful and honest in professional reports, consistent with the general ethical responsibility of professional engineers serving as forensic exp
Engineer A's volunteer service as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee did not per se preclude him from serving as a forensic expert witness for Attorney X, provided he disclosed the committee relationship, exercised inde
Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the capacity in which he was testifying at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing — specifically disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through h
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies while employed by the US Department of Energy in its coal bed methane division, as this dual engagement in the same substantive do
Attorney X Defense Counsel Conflict Disclosure Receipt Constraint Instance
Attorney X as retaining counsel must receive complete conflict disclosure from Engineer A to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the engagement given the supervisory committee relationship between Engineer A and opposing expert Engineer B
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest disclosure provisions; BER Case 19-3; professional norms governing expert witness engagements
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
Prior to formal engagement of Engineer A as defense expert
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 02-8
Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm
there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical authority for evaluating dual public-private employment conflicts
Precedent establishing that a government engineer's part-time private consulting work creates a conflict of interest even when the subject matter areas appear distinct, due to potential linkages and appearance concerns
Engineer A Boiler Case Volunteer Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A has been retained by Attorney X as a defense expert in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion; Engineer B serves as the opposing expert and is also a member of a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs.
Before accepting and throughout the forensic expert witness engagement
Engineer A Opposing Expert Supervisory Authority Conflict Non-Participation Constraint Instance
Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within that committee; both are serving as opposing expert witnesses in the same personal injury litigation — creating a power asymmetry in which Engineer A holds supervisory authority over Engineer B in the committee context while simultaneously opposing Engineer B in adversarial litigation
Opposing Expert Supervisory Authority Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest avoidance provisions; BER Case 19-3; professional norms governing standards committee integrity
Throughout the pendency of the personal injury litigation and any related proceedings
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 07-12
More recently, in BER Case 07-12, Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council.
It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described. It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as an expert witness under the circumstances.
virtually all of the ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8, and possibly more, were clearly apparent in the later case
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the most recent analogical precedent before distinguishing the present case
Precedent establishing that an engineer serving as a government employee who provides expert testimony while obscuring their private consulting relationship with the retaining party acts unethically, particularly when credentials are misrepresented
From the time Doe prepared subdivision plans in private capacity through his recommendation and vote to approve those plans in public capacity
Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict State
Engineer Doe's simultaneous roles as county engineer, county planning board member, and private consulting engineer
Finding of ethical violation by NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Doe prepared subdivision plans as private consultant and then, in his public roles, recommended and voted to approve those same plans
Engineer A Adversarial Expert Engagement State
From Attorney X's request through resolution of the conflict of interest question
Engineer A has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion
Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination State
Engineer A's retention as defense expert in personal injury case involving boiler manufacturer
Disclosure to all parties and resolution of conflict, or withdrawal from engagement
Attorney X requests Engineer A to investigate and potentially serve as expert witness for defense in pressure vessel explosion case
Engineer A Adversarial Proceeding Expert Independence State
From acceptance of the expert engagement through conclusion of the litigation
Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
Engineer A's obligation to maintain objectivity as forensic expert in adversarial personal injury litigation
Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal from engagement
Retention by defense attorney in adversarial personal injury proceeding
Engineer A Boiler Case Conflict of Interest Assessment
From retention as forensic expert through disclosure to Attorney X and ongoing litigation
there does not appear to be any conflict
Engineer A's assessment of whether his volunteer committee chairmanship creates a conflict of interest with his forensic expert witness role
Full disclosure to Attorney X and independent exercise of professional judgment
Engineer A's role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest
While there may be the potential for an organizational conflict of interest between Engineer A's role on behalf of the technical society and another professional or technical society
Question raised about whether Engineer A's committee role creates a conflict with his expert witness role in litigation involving subject matter within the committee's domain
Engineer A Competing Duties - Committee Role vs Expert Role
From discovery of Engineer B's subcommittee membership through resolution of the conflict
Engineer A's competing obligations as committee chair (impartiality, standards integrity) and as retained defense expert (client service, adversarial advocacy pressure)
Disclosure and recusal, withdrawal from one role, or formal waiver by all parties
Engineer A learns that opposing expert Engineer B is a member of Engineer A's committee, creating tension between committee leadership duties and adversarial expert role
Engineer A Conflict of Interest State - Personal vs Professional
From discovery of Engineer B's subcommittee membership through resolution
Engineer A's structural conflict between committee authority over Engineer B and adversarial expert role against Engineer B
Disclosure, recusal, or withdrawal from engagement
Discovery that opposing expert Engineer B is a subcommittee member under Engineer A's committee chairship
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Dual Role Conflict
From the time Engineer A accepted private consulting work for coal bed methane companies while employed at US DOE through the Board's ethical determination
Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council... Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
Engineer A's simultaneous employment with US Department of Energy coal bed methane division and private consulting for coal bed methane companies
NSPE Board of Ethical Review determination that conduct was unethical
As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
Engineer A accepted private consulting engagement from coal bed methane company while employed in US DOE's coal bed methane division
Engineer A DOE Credential Conflation in State Y Testimony
During Engineer A's testimony before State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
Government Credential Conflation in Private Testimony State
Engineer A's use of US DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation while testifying as privately retained expert witness for coal bed methane company
Conclusion of testimony; subsequent newspaper report and revelation of private retaining arrangement
An obvious question to ask was whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the US DOE representation
When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
Engineer A displayed US DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation while testifying as privately retained consultant, without disclosing retaining party
Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consultant
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'public_role': 'State DOT Traffic Engineer', 'private_role': 'Part-time airport design consultant for former firm', 'specialty': 'Traffic engineering (public); Airport design (private)'}
Served as a state DOT traffic engineer while being approached to perform part-time private consulting for municipalities on airport design — a dual role found unethical due to conflict of interest potential between state highway and municipal airport domains.
{'type': 'client_contact', 'target': 'Municipalities'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
{'type': 'prospective_employer', 'target': 'Former Consulting Engineering Firm'}
Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting Engineer
Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation
Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements
his role in one or another area could be compromised in certain situations and circumstances
it would be unethical for Engineer A to do so
Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Dual Role Conflict
From the time Engineer A was approached by former firm through the Board's ethical determination
Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements... while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
Engineer A's simultaneous employment as State DOT traffic engineer and proposed part-time consulting for private firm on municipal airport projects
NSPE Board of Ethical Review determination that the arrangement would be unethical
the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
Former consulting firm approached Engineer A to serve part-time seeking municipal airport contracts while Engineer A remained employed at State DOT
John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'public_role': 'County Engineer and County Planning Board Member', 'private_role': 'Part-time consulting engineer'}
Prepared subdivision plans as a private consulting engineer, then as county engineer recommended approval of those same plans to the county planning board, and as a planning board member voted to approve them — a triple conflict of interest found unethical by the BER.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Subdivision Developer'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'County Government'}
{'type': 'regulatory_authority', 'target': 'County Planning Board'}
John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer
He also engaged in part-time consulting practice
In ruling that Doe's actions were unethical
as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
Attorney X Defense Counsel Retaining Forensic Expert
{'role_type': 'Defense attorney', 'litigation_context': 'Personal injury case involving boiler safety'}
Defense attorney who retains Engineer A as a forensic expert witness in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety, and who must receive full disclosure from Engineer A about the committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership.
{'type': 'adverse_to', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member Opposing Expert'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert'}
Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
Attorney X Defense Counsel Receipt of Full Conflict Disclosure from Engineer A
Attorney X has retained Engineer A as defense forensic expert in personal injury litigation involving a pressure vessel explosion; the plaintiff's expert Engineer B serves on a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee chaired by Engineer A.
Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — including Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership — and must assess whether the conflict is sufficiently serious to affect the engagement or require additional management steps.
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer in connection with a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion.
Prior to or upon finalizing the retention of Engineer A as defense expert
Engineer A learns that the forensic engineering expert for the plaintiff, Engineer B, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs.
Attorney X Retaining Counsel Disclosure Receipt and Conflict Assessment Obligation
Attorney X retained Engineer A as a forensic expert witness in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety. The disclosure obligation runs to Attorney X as the party who must assess whether the committee supervisory relationship between Engineer A and opposing expert Engineer B creates conflicts that affect the engagement.
Attorney X (Defense Counsel Retaining Forensic Expert)
Attorney X, as retaining counsel, was entitled to receive full disclosure from Engineer A of both Engineer A's committee chair role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership, so that Attorney X could assess potential conflicts, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make informed decisions about the engagement.
Prior to or upon Engineer A accepting the forensic expert engagement
Engineer A Boiler Code Chair Expert Witness Conflict Assessment
From the time Engineer A was retained as forensic expert in the pending litigation through resolution of the litigation or withdrawal from one of the roles
Volunteer Standards Role Expert Witness Conflict Assessment State
Engineer A's simultaneous role as chairman of boiler code standards and safety committee and retained forensic expert witness in litigation where Engineer B (a subcommittee member) serves as opposing expert
Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal from expert or committee role
Engineer A retained as forensic expert in litigation where opposing expert Engineer B is a member of Engineer A's technical subcommittee
Engineer A Conflict of Interest - Committee Chair vs Opposing Expert
From the moment Engineer A learns that Engineer B is a subcommittee member through disclosure, recusal, or withdrawal
Opposing Expert Shared Committee Leadership State
Engineer A's simultaneous role as committee chair over Engineer B and as opposing expert witness in the same litigation
Full disclosure to retaining counsel and client, recusal from committee matters involving Engineer B, or withdrawal from the expert engagement
Engineer A learns that plaintiff's forensic expert Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within the boiler code standards and safety committee that Engineer A chairs
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
Engineer A's failure to accurately represent his role as a paid consultant for coal bed methane companies — while displaying DOE credentials — violated the fundamental obligation to make only truthful and accurate representations of professional affiliation and capacity
Honesty in professional representations extends to the context and capacity in which testimony is provided, not merely to the technical content of the testimony itself
professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
No competing principle justified the misleading representation; honesty required affirmative disclosure of consulting role
Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies
professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role
John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member Dual Role Conflict
BER Case No. 67-1: John Doe served as county engineer, planning board member, and part-time private consulting engineer. He prepared subdivision plans privately, recommended them as county engineer, and voted to approve them as a planning board member. The Board found this conduct unethical as a direct conflict with the NSPE Code.
John Doe (County Engineer, Planning Board Member, Private Consulting Engineer)
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Through Isolation Obligation
John Doe was obligated to refrain from simultaneously preparing subdivision plans as a private consulting engineer, recommending those same plans as county engineer, and voting to approve those plans as a planning board member — each role creating an independent conflict that compounded the others.
John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice. Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
Throughout the subdivision approval process
[Doe] would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer.
Professional Dignity Invoked By Engineer A Supervisory Relationship Over Engineer B
Adversarial proceeding involving pressure vessel explosion
Professional relationship between committee chair and opposing expert subcommittee member
Engineer A's committee chairmanship over Engineer B's subcommittee creates a professional supervisory relationship that must be managed with respect for Engineer B's professional dignity and standing — Engineer A must not use the committee authority to influence, pressure, or disadvantage Engineer B in the adversarial proceeding
Professional dignity in this context requires Engineer A to maintain a clear separation between the committee supervisory role and the adversarial expert witness role, ensuring that the committee relationship is not weaponized against Engineer B's professional standing or used to create an unfair advantage in the litigation
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
Disclosure of the relationship to all relevant parties, combined with a commitment to maintain the committee role and expert witness role as entirely separate, is the mechanism for protecting Engineer B's professional dignity while allowing Engineer A to proceed with the engagement if appropriate
Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
Regulatory hearing testimony on coal bed methane discharge permits
Engineer A's failure to disclose that his testimony was funded by a coal bed methane company — while presenting DOE credentials — constituted a failure to disclose a material financial interest in the outcome of his testimony, rendering his advisory role fundamentally compromised
The retaining party's identity and the financial relationship between Engineer A and the coal bed methane company were material facts that the regulatory council needed to assess the objectivity of his testimony
Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
it was not entirely clear from the facts on whose behalf Engineer A was testifying
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Invoked By John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
Subdivision plan preparation, recommendation, and approval process
John Doe's simultaneous roles as private consulting engineer (preparing subdivision plans), county engineer (recommending those plans), and planning board member (voting to approve those plans) created an unmistakable appearance of impropriety and actual conflict of interest that rendered his conduct unethical
The dual-role conflict here was not merely apparent but actual — Doe occupied all three positions simultaneously and exercised authority in each over the same subject matter, making independent judgment impossible
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
In his capacity as an engineer in private practice, Doe had prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member.
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Obligation
The Board of Ethical Review affirmed the general obligation of professional engineers serving as forensic experts to perform services with honesty and integrity, regardless of whether they serve in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles such as professional or technical societies.
Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair, Forensic Expert Witness)
Engineer A was obligated to perform forensic expert services with honesty and integrity, being truthful and honest in professional reports, consistent with the general ethical responsibility of professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation.
These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
Throughout the forensic investigation and expert engagement
Engineer Non-Advocate Status Invoked By Engineer A Defense Expert Role
Defense expert witness role in personal injury litigation
Forensic investigation of pressure vessel explosion on behalf of boiler manufacturer
Engineer A, despite being retained by defense counsel Attorney X, must maintain the role of objective technical expert rather than advocate for the boiler manufacturer, rendering forensic opinions based on technical evidence rather than the manufacturer's litigation interests
The adversarial context of the personal injury litigation does not transform Engineer A's professional role from technical expert to advocate — Engineer A's obligations to objectivity, completeness, and truthful reporting remain fully operative regardless of the retaining party's litigation interests
Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
Forensic expert engagement in personal injury boiler explosion litigation
Engineer A's role as forensic expert for Attorney X requires him to provide objective technical expertise as a mechanical and safety engineer, not to advocate for the defense position — his committee expertise informs his analysis but does not make him a partisan for any particular interpretation of the boiler safety standards
The non-advocate principle is reinforced in this case by Engineer A's committee role — he must be especially careful that his forensic opinions reflect independent technical judgment rather than institutional positions of the standards committee
presumably Engineer A will exercise independent judgment and discretion in rendering his opinion
Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
Forensic expert opinion in boiler explosion personal injury litigation
Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation in Forensic Engagements
Engineer A must render forensic opinions based on independent technical assessment as a mechanical and safety engineer, not as an advocate for the position his committee work may have established, maintaining objectivity that is informed but not determined by committee experience
Objectivity in this context requires that committee expertise serve as background knowledge rather than as a predetermined conclusion, and that Engineer A's forensic analysis be genuinely independent
Standards Committee Role Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A
Expert witness engagement in personal injury litigation involving pressure vessel explosion
Professional relationship between Engineer A (committee chair) and Engineer B (subcommittee member)
Engineer A, as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee, is obligated to disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's own committee chairmanship role and the fact that opposing expert Engineer B serves as a member of a technical subcommittee within that same committee, before proceeding with the forensic expert witness engagement
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to affirmatively surface the supervisory committee relationship with the opposing expert to retaining counsel, so that Attorney X can assess whether the relationship creates a conflict, an appearance of impropriety, or a strategic consideration that affects the engagement
Standards Committee Role Disclosure in Expert Witness Engagements
Standards Committee Role Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
Engineer A, as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee, must disclose to Attorney X both his own committee chairmanship and the fact that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of Engineer A's technical subcommittees
The disclosure obligation runs in two directions: Engineer A must disclose his own role (which could affect his credibility or create organizational conflicts) and must disclose Engineer B's subordinate role on his committee (which creates a professional supervisory relationship with the opposing expert that Attorney X must know about to assess proceeding dynamics)
Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
Engineer A's forensic opinions as a mechanical and safety engineer are to be rendered independently of his committee chair role — informed by that experience but not controlled by it — and the absence of direct business conflicts means the committee role does not disqualify him from serving as forensic expert
The Board distinguishes between expertise derived from committee service (permissible and valuable) and organizational conflicts created by committee service (which would be disqualifying) — finding only the former present here
Credential Presentation Accuracy Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
Engineer A's use of DOE job title credentials in his PowerPoint presentation while testifying as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company — without clearly disclosing his consulting role — created a misleading impression of official governmental authority that rendered his testimony unethical
The credential misrepresentation was ethically impermissible whether negligent or intentional — the effect on the audience's understanding of Engineer A's affiliation and independence was the same regardless of subjective intent
Credential Presentation Accuracy in Forensic Engagements
a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
An obvious question to ask was whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the US DOE representation, since that action could be viewed either as a careless error or as an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony. In either case, said the Board, it was entirely inappropriate
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Invoked By Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony on coal bed methane discharge permits
Engineer A's simultaneous role as a DOE employee in coal bed methane research and as a paid consultant for coal bed methane companies created an appearance of impropriety that was compounded by his failure to disclose the consulting role — the dual role made it impossible for the regulatory council to assess whose interests he was actually serving
The appearance of impropriety was created not merely by the dual role but by the active obscuring of the private consulting role through the display of DOE credentials, which made the dual role invisible to the audience
The appearance of impropriety was irresolvable given the undisclosed dual role; disclosure would have been required at minimum
Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council. The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducted a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits. Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
Engineer A Boiler Case Opposing Expert Shared Committee Leadership
From the time both engineers are retained as opposing experts in the pending litigation through its conclusion
Engineer A has an obligation to... advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
Engineer A (committee chair) and Engineer B (subcommittee member) serving as opposing expert witnesses in the same litigation while standing in a hierarchical committee relationship
Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal of one expert
Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees... and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
Engineer A retained as forensic expert in litigation where Engineer B — a member of Engineer A's subcommittee — serves as opposing expert
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (State X only)', 'public_role': 'US Department of Energy employee, coal bed methane division', 'private_role': 'Paid consultant for coal bed methane companies', 'testimony_jurisdiction': 'State Y (not licensed)'}
Testified at a state environmental quality council hearing as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company while presenting DOE job title credentials, failing to disclose the financial relationship with the retaining company, and creating the false impression of testifying as a DOE researcher — found unethical by the BER.
{'type': 'committee_member', 'target': 'State X Environmental Quality Council'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'US Department of Energy'}
{'type': 'retaining_client', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company'}
{'type': 'testimony_before', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness Engineer
Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council
Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE
It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described
a newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified
Honesty Invoked By Engineer A Disclosure to Attorney X
Pre-engagement disclosure to retaining attorney
Representation of professional independence and objectivity
Engineer A is obligated to be fully honest with Attorney X about the professional relationship with opposing expert Engineer B — including the committee supervisory relationship — rather than accepting the engagement without disclosing facts that are material to Attorney X's assessment of Engineer A's suitability as defense expert
Honesty requires not only the absence of affirmative misrepresentation but also the proactive disclosure of material facts that Attorney X would reasonably want to know before making the retention decision — the committee supervisory relationship with the opposing expert is precisely such a material fact
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
Assessment of whether committee chairmanship creates disqualifying conflict for forensic engagement
Engineer A's volunteer standards committee role does not automatically bar forensic expert service; the profession's evolved approach requires disclosure and management of the potential organizational relationship rather than automatic recusal
The Board applies the disclosure-and-management standard rather than the absolute avoidance standard, finding that absent direct business conflicts, disclosure of committee roles to retaining counsel is the appropriate response
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Expert Witness Engagement
Engineer A's professional supervisory relationship over Engineer B — as committee chair over a subcommittee member — constitutes a material professional interest that must be disclosed to Attorney X before Engineer A accepts the expert witness engagement, because the relationship could affect the perception of Engineer A's independence and objectivity
In this context, the conflict of interest disclosure principle requires Engineer A to treat the committee supervisory relationship not merely as a personal matter but as a material professional fact that Attorney X needs to assess the objectivity and independence of the retained expert
Standards Committee Role Disclosure Invoked By Attorney X
Assessment of potential conflict or appearance of impropriety in expert witness selection
Defense expert witness retention decision
Attorney X, as the retaining counsel, must receive full disclosure from Engineer A of the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B in order to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with Engineer A as the defense expert witness
The principle operates not only on Engineer A's disclosure obligation but also on Attorney X's right to receive that disclosure — Attorney X cannot make an informed retention decision without knowing that the defense expert chairs the committee on which the opposing expert serves
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Invoked By Engineer A Committee Supervisory Relationship
Management of professional supervisory relationship with opposing expert
Engineer A's committee supervisory relationship over opposing expert Engineer B constitutes a potential conflict of interest that, under the profession's evolved disclosure-and-management standard, must be disclosed to Attorney X rather than automatically triggering recusal from the expert witness engagement
The evolved disclosure-and-management approach means that Engineer A is not automatically barred from serving as defense expert merely because of the committee relationship with Engineer B — but the relationship must be disclosed so that Attorney X can make an informed decision about whether to proceed, and so that all parties can assess whether the relationship can be managed without compromising the integrity of the proceeding
Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consultant
State DOT employment and private airport consulting engagement for municipalities
Engineer A's simultaneous service as a state DOT traffic engineer and private airport consultant for municipalities created a conflict of interest because highways and airports are functionally linked, and his governmental role with municipalities could be compromised by his private consulting role with the same municipalities
The Board applied a functional linkage test: even though state highway work and municipal airport design appear to be distinct domains, the interconnection of transportation infrastructure means decisions in one sphere can affect the other, creating potential for compromised judgment
Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Public-Private Engineering
it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities
Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere. For example, there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked, and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Invoked By Engineer A Committee Chair and Expert Witness
Professional supervisory relationship between Engineer A and opposing expert Engineer B
Simultaneous committee chairmanship and expert witness roles
Engineer A's simultaneous role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation involving boiler safety standards — combined with the supervisory committee relationship over opposing expert Engineer B — creates an appearance of impropriety that requires disclosure and assessment before Engineer A proceeds with the engagement
The appearance of impropriety arises from two overlapping concerns: (1) Engineer A's committee chairmanship may appear to give Engineer A authority or influence over the standards that are at issue in the litigation, and (2) Engineer A's supervisory relationship over Engineer B may appear to compromise the independence of both experts in the adversarial proceeding
Engineer A Boiler Case Expert Witness Disclosure Obligation
From retention as expert through fulfillment of disclosure obligation to Attorney X
Engineer A's engagement as forensic expert in litigation against Engineer B without prior disclosure of their shared committee relationship to retaining counsel
Engineer A's full disclosure to Attorney X of committee role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership
Engineer A retained as forensic expert in litigation where opposing expert is a member of his own technical subcommittee, without initial disclosure of that relationship
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure to Attorney X
Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee and has been retained by defense attorney Attorney X to investigate and potentially testify as an expert witness in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion; the plaintiff's expert Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within Engineer A's committee.
Engineer A is obligated to fully disclose to Attorney X both Engineer A's own role as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and Engineer B's role as a member of a subcommittee within that same committee, so that Attorney X can assess the conflict, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make an informed decision about retaining Engineer A as the defense expert.
Upon learning that Engineer B is the opposing expert and prior to or contemporaneously with accepting the engagement
Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Forensic Investigation
Forensic investigation of pressure vessel explosion
Engineer A must conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment, without allowing the defense attorney's litigation interests, the manufacturer's commercial interests, or the committee supervisory relationship with opposing expert Engineer B to shape or distort the technical conclusions
Professional Dignity Invoked By Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert Toward Engineer B
Professional relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B in shared committee context during pending litigation
Engineer A must treat Engineer B with professional respect in their shared committee context and must not engage in written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B about the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel, thereby preserving Engineer B's professional dignity and the integrity of their shared organizational relationship
Professional dignity here requires not only respectful conduct but also procedural restraint — avoiding ex parte communications that could compromise both engineers' professional standing and the integrity of the litigation
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Expert Witness Credential Misrepresentation
BER Case No. 07-12: Engineer A, a DOE employee working in coal bed methane, testified at a state environmental quality council hearing as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company. He displayed DOE credentials in his PowerPoint presentation without disclosing his private consulting relationship, leading a newspaper to report him as a 'US DOE researcher.' The Board found this conduct unethical.
Engineer A (DOE Employee, Private Coal Bed Methane Consultant, Expert Witness)
Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the capacity in which he was testifying at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing — specifically disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business — and to refrain from presenting DOE job title credentials in a manner that created a false impression of official DOE endorsement of his testimony.
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE. Although Engineer A also provided consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he worked for coal bed methane companies.
At the time of providing expert testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
A newspaper article on the hearing reported that a 'US DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and it was later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company.
It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as an expert witness under the circumstances.
Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consulting Dual Role Conflict
BER Case No. 02-8: Engineer A served as a state DOT traffic engineer reviewing private engineering contracts and traffic signal plans. He was approached by his former firm to serve part-time seeking airport design contracts with municipalities — the same municipalities with whom he interacted in his DOT role. The Board found this unethical due to interrelated domain conflict.
Engineer A (State DOT Traffic Engineer, Prospective Airport Consultant)
Dual-Role Public-Private Engineer Interrelated Domain Conflict Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to decline the part-time private consulting engagement with his former firm for municipal airport design work while employed as a state DOT traffic engineer, because the highway and airport domains are sufficiently interrelated that his objectivity in either role could be compromised, and the appearance of conflict could not be adequately managed.
Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
At the time of considering and accepting the private consulting engagement
Based on the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Dual Disclosure to Attorney X
Engineer A, a mechanical and forensic PE who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee, was retained by defense attorney Attorney X to conduct a forensic investigation of a pressure vessel explosion. The plaintiff's expert, Engineer B, is a member of a technical subcommittee within the same committee chaired by Engineer A.
Engineer A was obligated to fully disclose to Attorney X: (1) his role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, and (2) that Engineer B — the opposing expert — serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that same boiler code standards and safety committee.
Upon accepting the forensic expert engagement from Attorney X, and before commencing the forensic investigation
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Non-Communication with Engineer B Regarding Litigation
Engineer A chairs the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B is a member of a subcommittee within that committee and is simultaneously the plaintiff's forensic expert in the same litigation in which Engineer A serves as defense expert.
Standards Committee Peer Litigation Non-Communication Obligation
Engineer A must refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending personal injury litigation without the direction of Attorney X, so that the integrity of both the expert witness role and the standards committee function are preserved and no improper ex parte communication occurs.
Throughout the duration of the litigation engagement
Engineer A Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Management Committee Chair and Defense Expert
Engineer A's simultaneous role as committee chair and defense expert witness, with Engineer B as both subcommittee member and opposing plaintiff's expert, creates a dual role conflict that could compromise the interests of all parties and call into question Engineer A's professional judgment.
Engineer A must recognize that simultaneously serving as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee and as defense expert witness in litigation where the opposing expert is a subcommittee member creates an appearance of impropriety, and must take affirmative steps to manage this dual role — including full disclosure to Attorney X and assessment of whether the conflict requires declining the engagement.
Upon learning of Engineer B's role as opposing expert and prior to accepting or continuing the engagement
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Governmental Employee Private Consulting Conflict
BER Case No. 07-12: Engineer A was employed by the US DOE working in coal bed methane while simultaneously providing consulting services for private coal bed methane companies. The Board found this created a clear conflict of interest making it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in the same area for private clients.
Engineer A (DOE Employee, Private Coal Bed Methane Consultant)
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies while employed by the US Department of Energy in its coal bed methane division, as this dual engagement in the same substantive domain breached his faithful agent duty to his governmental employer and created an irresolvable conflict of interest.
As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients.
Throughout the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting
Engineer A Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert Objectivity Obligation
Engineer A was retained by defense attorney Attorney X to conduct a forensic investigation of a pressure vessel explosion. Despite being retained by defense counsel, Engineer A's role is that of an objective technical expert assisting the trier of fact, not an advocate for the boiler manufacturer defendant.
Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to render forensic opinions on the pressure vessel explosion based on independent technical analysis as a mechanical and safety engineer, exercising independent judgment and discretion rather than acting as an advocate for the defense or allowing his committee chair role to influence his technical conclusions.
Throughout the forensic investigation and any subsequent expert testimony
These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role.
Engineer A Volunteer Standards Role Non-Preclusion of Forensic Service
The Board of Ethical Review distinguished Engineer A's volunteer standards committee role from the governmental employment conflicts in BER 67-1 and BER 02-8, finding that volunteer public-benefit standards service does not create the same type of conflict as governmental employment or commercial dual-role arrangements.
Engineer A (Standards Committee Chair, Forensic Expert Witness) and Ethics Reviewing Body
Volunteer Standards Role Non-Preclusion of Forensic Expert Service Obligation
Engineer A's volunteer service as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee did not per se preclude him from serving as a forensic expert witness for Attorney X, provided he disclosed the committee relationship, exercised independent judgment, and had no other direct business or professional relationship with Engineer B beyond the committee supervisory relationship.
At the time of accepting the forensic expert engagement
The Board sees a clear difference from the earlier cases.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Mechanical engineering, safety engineering', 'volunteer_role': 'Chairman, boiler code standards and safety committee (engineering society)', 'litigation_role': 'Forensic expert witness retained by defense attorney'}
Serves as volunteer chair of a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and is retained by Attorney X as a forensic expert witness in personal injury litigation involving boiler safety — the present case finding no inherent conflict but imposing disclosure and ex parte communication obligations.
{'type': 'committee_superior', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'opposing_expert', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee
Engineer A would be offering opinions as a mechanical engineer with expertise in safety engineering independent of any role as the safety codes and standards chair
advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee
Engineer A Forensic Expert Objectivity in Defense Retention Pressure Vessel Explosion
Engineer A has been retained by defense attorney Attorney X to investigate and potentially testify as an expert witness in a personal injury case involving a pressure vessel explosion; Engineer A must resist any pressure to adopt an advocacy role on behalf of the boiler manufacturer.
Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation
Engineer A must conduct the forensic investigation of the pressure vessel explosion and render expert opinions based solely on technical evidence and independent professional judgment, functioning as an objective assistant to the trier of fact rather than as an advocate for the defendant boiler manufacturer, notwithstanding being retained by defense counsel Attorney X.
Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert.
Throughout the investigation and any expert witness engagement