In BER Case 83-1, the Board considered the ethical conduct of an engineer who, as a principal in an engineering firm, terminated an engineer but continued to distribute a previously printed brochure listing the terminated engineer
the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning to the current case
Cited as precedent establishing that intentional distribution of a promotional brochure listing a terminated 'key employee' after departure constitutes a clear misrepresentation of pertinent fact and a Code violation; used to distinguish cases involving deliberate misrepresentation from oversight
More recently, in BER Case 90-4, a case involving similar issues, an engineer, one of a few engineers in a medium-sized firm with expertise in hydrology, gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm.
As we noted in BER Case 90-4, this could take the form of a simple and inexpensive errata sheet inserted into the brochure.
Under the reasoning in BER Case 90-4, the marketing director has an ethical obligation to take expeditious action to correct the error.
Board of Ethical Review as the primary analogical and normative basis for resolving the current case
Cited as the most directly analogous precedent: established that inadvertent inclusion of a departing engineer's name in firm brochures without intent to mislead may not constitute unethical conduct, but also established the affirmative obligation for firms to expeditiously correct inaccurate marketing materials once aware of the error; directly applied to impose an ethical obligation on the marketing director in the current case
BER 83-1 Firm Principal Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment
Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to assess whether the BER 83-1 firm principal's distribution of a brochure listing a terminated key employee was motivated by intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications, finding that the facts — including awareness of impending termination and post-departure distribution — demonstrated such intent.
Applied during BER analysis of Case 83-1 to determine whether the firm principal's distribution of a brochure listing a terminated key employee constituted an intentional misrepresentation to enhance firm qualifications.
The BER's finding that the BER 83-1 engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure, based on the engineer's awareness of the impending termination and continued distribution after the terminated engineer left the firm.
BER Ethics Reviewing Body (BER 83-1 Analysis)
The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
The engineer was aware of the impending termination of the terminated engineer.
the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
BER 83-1 Firm Principal Brochure Misrepresentation Precedent Synthesis
BER Multi-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Synthesis Capability
The BER 83-1 firm principal demonstrated (negatively) the need for the capability to synthesize brochure personnel misrepresentation precedents — the principal intentionally distributed brochures listing a terminated key employee, establishing the precedent that such conduct violates the pertinent-fact dual-element misrepresentation standard.
BER Case 83-1 established the foundational precedent for evaluating personnel misrepresentation in firm brochures under the pertinent-fact dual-element test
Intentional distribution of brochures listing a terminated key employee both during the notice period and after termination, establishing the BER 83-1 precedent
In BER Case 83-1, this principal engineer intentionally distributed a brochure listing a terminated 'key employee' both during the notice period and after termination.
BER 83-1 Intent-Differentiated Severity Calibration Key Employee Post-Departure Distribution
BER 83-1 precedent: firm principal continued distributing brochure listing terminated engineer as 'key employee' after departure, with awareness of impending termination and intent to enhance firm qualifications
Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
The BER 83-1 firm principal's conduct was constrained by the pertinent-fact dual-element test: continued distribution of the brochure listing the terminated engineer as a 'key employee' after actual departure satisfied both elements — (1) misrepresentation of a pertinent fact (key employee availability) and (2) intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications — constituting a clear ethical violation, calibrated at the severe end of the intent-differentiated spectrum.
Period after terminated engineer's actual departure from the firm
the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
BER 83-1 Terminated Engineer Terminated Staff Engineer Subject to Credential Misuse
{'designation_in_brochure': 'Key employee', 'status': 'Terminated', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 83-1'}
In BER Case 83-1, this engineer was terminated but continued to be listed as a 'key employee' in the firm's promotional brochure, both while still employed under notice and after departure, constituting a clear misrepresentation of the firm's qualifications.
{'type': 'misrepresented_by', 'target': 'BER 83-1 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer'}
Terminated Staff Engineer Subject to Credential Misuse
terminated an engineer but continued to distribute a previously printed brochure listing the terminated engineer, who stayed on for a period of time as one of his 'key employees'
the terminated engineer, highlighted as a 'key employee', would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects
BER 90-4 Departing Hydrology Engineer Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
{'specialty': 'Hydrology', 'status': 'Voluntarily departing (two weeks notice)', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 90-4', 'finding': 'Not unethical under the specific facts — oversight without malice'}
In BER Case 90-4, this engineer gave two weeks' notice of departure to another firm but continued to be listed in the firm's brochure and resume. The Board found no ethical violation given the absence of intent to misrepresent and the engineer not being highlighted as a 'key employee'.
{'type': 'listed_by', 'target': 'BER 90-4 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer'}
an engineer, one of a few engineers in a medium-sized firm with expertise in hydrology, gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm
a principal in the firm continued to distribute a brochure identifying the engineer as an employee of the firm and listed the departing engineer on the firm resume
BER 90-4 Firm Principal Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction
Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to distinguish between the BER 83-1 scenario (terminated key employee listed with highlighting — material misrepresentation) and the BER 90-4 scenario (departing non-key engineer listed without highlighting — not a material misrepresentation of pertinent facts), applying this distinction to calibrate the ethical obligations of the firm principal.
Applied during BER analysis of Case 90-4 to distinguish the departing hydrology engineer scenario from the BER 83-1 terminated key employee scenario.
The BER's finding that BER 90-4 did not involve a key-employee designation, no highlighting of the departing engineer's activities, and no clear intent to enhance qualifications — distinguishing it from BER 83-1 and finding no ethical violation.
BER Ethics Reviewing Body (BER 90-4 Analysis)
in BER Case 83-1, the terminated engineer was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee'
in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm.
the inclusion of the name of the departing engineer in the firm's brochure and resume did not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'.
BER 90-4 Firm Principal Non-Key Employee Brochure Listing Assessment
The BER 90-4 firm principal demonstrated the capability to distinguish between key and non-key employee brochure listings — continuing to list a departing non-key hydrology engineer without the intent to misrepresent, establishing the precedent that non-key employee listings without enhancement intent may be permissible under the totality of circumstances.
BER Case 90-4 established the precedent distinguishing key from non-key employee brochure listings for materiality assessment purposes
Continued listing of a departing non-key engineer in firm brochures without intent to misrepresent or highlight the engineer's qualifications, resulting in a different ethical assessment than BER 83-1
In BER Case 90-4, this principal continued to list a departing engineer in firm brochures and resumes, but without intent to misrepresent or highlight the engineer's qualifications.
BER Ethics Reviewer BER 83-1 90-4 Brochure Precedent Triangulation
BER Dual-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
The BER demonstrated advanced capability to triangulate between BER Case 83-1 and BER Case 90-4 to locate the present discipline misrepresentation scenario on the spectrum from permissible to impermissible brochure personnel listing conduct.
Applied during BER analysis to determine whether the marketing director's continued inaction on Engineer A's discipline misrepresentation constituted an ethical violation.
Systematic comparison of BER 83-1 (key employee, intent to enhance, post-departure distribution — violation) against BER 90-4 (non-key employee, no highlighting, oversight — no violation) and application to Engineer A's discipline misrepresentation case.
Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has had the opportunity to review at least two similar cases as the one presently before it.
We believe that the instant case presents a clear illustration of the last point raised earlier by the Board in BER Case 90-4.
BER Ethics Reviewer Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Engineer A Discipline Brochure
Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application Capability
The BER applied the pertinent-fact dual-element misrepresentation test to the Engineer A discipline misrepresentation scenario, assessing both whether the discipline misclassification concerned pertinent facts and whether the continued inaction after actual knowledge demonstrated intent to enhance firm qualifications.
Applied during BER analysis to determine whether the firm's discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A in marketing materials violated the pertinent-fact misrepresentation standard.
The BER's application of the dual-element framework — derived from BER 83-1 and BER 90-4 — to conclude that the marketing director's continued inaction after actual knowledge of the discipline misrepresentation constituted an ethical obligation breach.
the firm's marketing director has been informed by the engineer in question that the firm's marketing brochure contains inaccurate information that could mislead and deceive a client or potential client.
While we freely acknowledge that this is sometimes a difficult line to draw, we believe that the best method of determining whether the line is violated is by reviewing each individual matter on a case-by-case basis.
the marketing director has an ethical obligation to take expeditious action to correct the error.
CausalLink_Engineer A Escalates to Firm P
CausalLink_Engineer A Reports Misclassifi
CausalLink_Firm Sustains Inaction Over Si
CausalLink_Marketing Director Acknowledge
Engineer A should raise the issue of the error with a principal in the firm and note the appropriate requirements under the state board's rules of professional conduct in writing.
The Board's sole explicit conclusion is a recommendation directing Engineer A to escalate the unresolved discipline misrepresentation to a firm principal in writing, referencing the state board's rules of professional conduct, after six months of inaction by the marketing director following an initial collegial notification. This reflects the graduated internal escalation framework and self-policing obligation the Board applied to Engineer A's situation.
Beyond the Board's recommendation that Engineer A escalate to a firm principal in writing, the six-month duration of uncorrected misrepresentation is analytically significant because it transforms the ethical character of the violation. What originated as a potentially negligent typographical oversight has, by virtue of the marketing director's actual knowledge and continued inaction, ripened into something closer to a reckless or knowing misrepresentation. The negligent-origin defense — which might have mitigated the firm's culpability in the first days or weeks after Engineer A's initial notification — is temporally bounded by actual knowledge. Once the marketing director acknowledged the error and promised correction, the firm's ongoing publication of the misclassified literature can no longer be characterized as inadvertent. This distinction matters because it calibrates the urgency of Engineer A's escalation obligation: the longer the inaction persists after actual knowledge, the less latitude Engineer A has to continue waiting passively before escalating to a firm principal or, ultimately, to the state board.
The Board's recommendation focuses on Engineer A's escalation obligation but does not address the independent ethical exposure of the marketing director as a licensed professional engineer. Because the marketing director holds a PE license, he bears a distinct and heightened duty that runs not merely to the firm as an institutional employer but to the profession and to the public. His acknowledged promise to correct the error, followed by six months of inaction, constitutes a failure of the Promised Correction Follow-Through Obligation and the Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered by Marketing Director's Actual Knowledge. Unlike a non-engineer marketing employee who might plausibly claim ignorance of the professional significance of discipline mislabeling, the marketing director — as a PE — is presumed to understand that listing an engineer in a discipline outside his competence is not a trivial clerical matter but a potential misrepresentation of professional qualifications to prospective clients. His inaction therefore constitutes a distinct ethical violation separate from the firm's institutional failure, and Engineer A's written escalation to a firm principal should explicitly note that the marketing director's status as a licensed engineer compounds the seriousness of the uncorrected error.
The Board's conclusion appropriately stops short of requiring Engineer A to report externally to the state board at this stage, consistent with the Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation and the Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation. However, the Board's reasoning implies — without stating explicitly — that if escalation to a firm principal also fails to produce correction within a reasonable period, Engineer A's ethical obligations would shift toward external reporting. This implication deserves to be made explicit: the internal escalation pathway is not infinitely elastic. Engineer A's passive acquiescence beyond the six-month mark, without escalating to a firm principal, would itself begin to implicate Engineer A's personal ethical exposure under the duty not to permit misrepresentation of his qualifications. As an EIT, Engineer A cannot authorize or tacitly ratify a continuing misrepresentation of his own engineering discipline simply by remaining silent. Furthermore, the risk of prospective client harm — specifically, a client who retains the firm expecting electrical engineering services from Engineer A and who suffers harm from Engineer A's lack of electrical competence — independently accelerates the escalation timeline. The potential for such concrete client reliance harm means that Engineer A's obligation is not merely self-protective but is grounded in the broader public protection rationale that underlies the NSPE Code's anti-misrepresentation provisions.
In response to Q101: Engineer A does bear meaningful personal ethical exposure by remaining passively associated with the uncorrected misrepresentation after the six-month mark. Although Engineer A is an EIT rather than a licensed PE, the NSPE Code's obligations under II.5.a — prohibiting engineers from permitting misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications — apply to engineers at all licensure stages. By taking no further action after the marketing director's promise went unfulfilled for six months, Engineer A effectively 'permits' the ongoing misrepresentation to continue. The word 'permit' in II.5.a is not limited to active authorization; passive acquiescence after actual knowledge and failed initial notification constitutes a form of permission. Engineer A's initial notification to the marketing director satisfied the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm, but that satisfaction is temporally bounded: it does not provide indefinite cover for continued inaction. After six months, Engineer A's silence begins to shade into complicity, creating both ethical exposure under the Code and reputational risk if a client later relies on the misrepresented credential to Engineer A's detriment.
In response to Q102: The six-month period of inaction following the marketing director's actual knowledge of the error represents the threshold at which the firm's conduct transitions from negligent oversight to something approaching reckless indifference, if not constructive intentional misrepresentation. The Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test, as applied in BER 83-1 and BER 90-4, calibrates severity partly by intent. However, intent is not static: a misrepresentation that originates as a typographical error but persists for six months after actual notice has been stripped of its negligent-origin defense. The marketing director's acknowledged promise to correct the error, combined with six months of inaction, satisfies the 'purpose' prong of the dual-element test because the continued publication of the literature — with full knowledge of the error — effectively serves the purpose of presenting Engineer A as an electrical engineer to prospective clients. At this juncture, Engineer A's obligation to escalate internally to a firm principal is not merely advisable but ethically compelled. External reporting to the state board is not yet required, because internal channels have not been fully exhausted — the firm principal has not yet been engaged — but if escalation to a firm principal also fails to produce correction within a reasonable additional period, the Engineering Self-Policing Obligation and the state board's rules of professional conduct would likely require Engineer A to consider external reporting.
In response to Q103: The marketing director, as a licensed professional engineer, bears an independent and heightened ethical obligation with respect to the uncorrected misrepresentation that is distinct from Engineer A's escalation obligations. Unlike Engineer A, who is an EIT operating within a collegial-notification framework, the marketing director holds a PE license and therefore carries the full weight of the Code's obligations under II.5.a and III.3.a. The marketing director's dual role — as both the engineer who received actual notice of the error and the person with direct authority over marketing materials — creates a compound obligation: first, the Promised Correction Follow-Through Obligation arising from the explicit commitment made to Engineer A; and second, the Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered by Marketing Director's Actual Knowledge, which runs independently of any promise. The marketing director's six-month inaction constitutes a distinct ethical violation separate from the firm's institutional failure. Furthermore, the marketing director's PE status means that the state board's rules of professional conduct apply directly to the marketing director's conduct, and the marketing director's failure to deploy even a low-cost corrective mechanism — such as an errata sheet — within a reasonable period after receiving actual notice is itself a violation of the duty to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner under II.3.
In response to Q104: A prospective client who retained the firm specifically in reliance on Engineer A's misrepresented electrical engineering credentials would have a legitimate grievance, and the risk of such client harm independently accelerates Engineer A's escalation obligations. The Scope of Practice Boundary constraint is directly implicated: Engineer A has a mechanical engineering background and EIT status with no electrical engineering qualifications, meaning that any client who engaged the firm expecting electrical engineering services from Engineer A would receive services from someone unqualified in that discipline. This is not a merely technical or administrative misrepresentation — it is a misrepresentation that goes to the heart of professional competence and the public's ability to make informed decisions about engineering services. Under the consequentialist framework addressed in Q302, the risk of client harm from credential reliance substantially outweighs the organizational disruption of internal escalation. More importantly, from a deontological standpoint, the public protection rationale embedded in the NSPE Code — particularly the preamble's emphasis on public safety, health, and welfare — means that the possibility of client harm is not merely a factor to be weighed but a categorical trigger for more urgent action. Engineer A's escalation obligation is therefore not solely derived from the six-month inaction threshold; it is independently reinforced by the ongoing risk that a client may be harmed by relying on the misrepresentation.
In response to Q201: A genuine tension exists between the Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation and the Engineering Self-Policing Obligation, and six months of internal inaction materially sharpens that tension. The graduated escalation norm is premised on the assumption that internal channels, when properly engaged, are capable of producing correction — and that external reporting should be reserved for situations where internal channels have been fully exhausted or are demonstrably futile. However, the Engineering Self-Policing Obligation reflects the profession's collective interest in ensuring that misrepresentations harmful to the public are corrected expeditiously, regardless of institutional convenience. After six months, the marketing director's inaction provides substantial evidence that the lowest-level internal channel has failed. The Board's recommendation — that Engineer A escalate to a firm principal — represents the correct resolution of this tension: it preserves the graduated escalation framework by moving to the next internal level rather than jumping immediately to external reporting, while simultaneously acknowledging that continued reliance on the marketing director as the sole corrective mechanism is no longer ethically tenable. If escalation to a firm principal also fails within a reasonable additional period, the balance would shift decisively toward the Engineering Self-Policing Obligation, and external reporting would become ethically required.
In response to Q202: The tension between the Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation and the Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered by Marketing Director's Actual Knowledge is resolved by recognizing that the collegial engagement norm has a temporal limit. The Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation was satisfied when Engineer A first notified the marketing director of the error and received a promise of correction. That obligation does not require Engineer A to extend indefinite deference to the marketing director's self-correction capacity. Six months is well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the time afforded by collegial engagement norms, particularly where the marketing director is a licensed PE with direct authority over the marketing materials and access to low-cost corrective mechanisms such as errata sheets. The Expeditious Correction Obligation, by contrast, is not satisfied by a promise alone — it requires actual corrective action within a reasonable period. The marketing director's six-month inaction means that the collegial engagement phase has expired, and Engineer A's escalation to a firm principal is now not only permitted but required. The two obligations do not conflict in a way that paralyzes Engineer A; rather, they operate sequentially, with the collegial engagement obligation governing the initial response and the expeditious correction obligation governing the response to prolonged inaction.
In response to Q203: The apparent conflict between the Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test and the Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition's absolute character is real but resolvable. The dual-element test, as applied in BER 83-1 and BER 90-4, uses intent to calibrate the severity of a violation and to distinguish between culpable and excusable conduct. However, the Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition does not admit of a negligent-origin defense once actual knowledge has been established. The prohibition is absolute in the sense that no misrepresentation of engineering discipline is permissible in marketing materials, regardless of how it originated. What the dual-element test does is modulate the degree of culpability and the urgency of the corrective obligation — it does not create a safe harbor for negligent-origin misrepresentations that persist after actual notice. In the present case, the misrepresentation may have originated negligently, but after six months of actual knowledge and inaction, it can no longer be treated as a lesser violation. The negligent-origin defense is temporally bounded by actual knowledge, and the firm's continued publication of the misrepresentation after that point satisfies both elements of the dual-element test: the misrepresentation is a pertinent fact (Engineer A's engineering discipline is directly relevant to client selection of services), and its continued publication after actual notice serves the functional purpose of misleading prospective clients, regardless of whether that purpose was consciously intended.
In response to Q204: The Marketing Communication Currency Obligation does not conflict irreconcilably with the Comparative Case Precedent distinguishing BER 83-1 from BER 90-4, but the firm cannot legitimately invoke the BER 90-4 precedent to argue that Engineer A's discipline mislabeling is a minor, non-key-employee-level error warranting less urgent correction. BER 90-4 found no violation in the brief continued listing of a departing hydrology engineer during a two-week notice period, partly because the engineer was not listed as a 'key employee' and the listing was not shown to be a pertinent fact for client selection purposes. However, Engineer A's situation is materially distinguishable: the misrepresentation concerns not the engineer's continued employment status but the engineer's engineering discipline — a fact that is directly pertinent to whether a client would engage the firm for electrical engineering services. A client selecting a firm for electrical engineering work would reasonably consider whether the firm's engineers are actually electrical engineers. This makes the discipline mislabeling a pertinent fact under the dual-element test, unlike the routine listing in BER 90-4. Furthermore, the six-month duration of the uncorrected error in the present case far exceeds the two-week period in BER 90-4, eliminating any argument that the inaction is a minor or transitional oversight. The Marketing Communication Currency Obligation therefore applies with full force, and the BER 90-4 precedent provides no meaningful shelter for the firm's continued inaction.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A does have a categorical duty to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to a firm principal after six months of inaction by the marketing director, and this duty is independent of whether escalation is likely to produce a correction. The deontological foundation for this conclusion rests on two pillars. First, the duty not to permit misrepresentation of one's qualifications under II.5.a is a duty that runs to the profession and the public, not merely to the engineer's own interests. It is not contingent on consequentialist calculations about the probability of success. Second, Engineer A's status as an EIT does not diminish this duty; it may modulate the form of the obligation (internal escalation rather than direct external reporting), but it does not eliminate it. The categorical character of the duty is reinforced by the fact that the misrepresentation concerns Engineer A's own professional identity — a domain in which passive acquiescence is particularly difficult to justify. An engineer who allows a false representation of their own discipline to persist in public marketing materials, after having the means and opportunity to escalate the correction, fails a basic test of professional integrity that deontological ethics demands regardless of outcome.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist standpoint, the risk of client harm from relying on Engineer A's misclassified credentials as an electrical engineer substantially outweighs the organizational disruption caused by escalating the correction demand to a firm principal. The harm calculus is asymmetric: the organizational disruption of internal escalation is modest — it involves a conversation with a firm principal and a written notation of the applicable rules of professional conduct — whereas the potential harm from client reliance on the misrepresentation is significant. A client who selects the firm for electrical engineering services based on the belief that Engineer A is an electrical engineer may receive services from someone unqualified in that discipline, with potential consequences for project safety, quality, and the client's legal and financial interests. Furthermore, the probability of client harm is not negligible: the firm is actively engaged in a marketing campaign using the misrepresenting literature, meaning that the misrepresentation is being actively disseminated to prospective clients. Against this, the organizational cost of escalation is low and the probability that escalation will produce correction is reasonable, given that a firm principal has both the authority and the incentive to avoid the reputational and regulatory risks associated with a sustained misrepresentation. The consequentialist calculus therefore strongly supports Engineer A's escalation.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's initial notification to the marketing director was a necessary and commendable first step, but six months of passive waiting thereafter falls short of the professional integrity expected of an engineer — even an EIT. Virtue ethics asks not merely whether an agent performed the minimum required act, but whether the agent's conduct reflects the character traits — honesty, courage, diligence, and professional responsibility — that define a person of good professional character. An engineer of genuine professional integrity, upon discovering that their own credentials are being publicly misrepresented in an active marketing campaign, would not rest content with a single notification and a broken promise. The virtue of professional courage requires Engineer A to persist in seeking correction, even at the risk of organizational friction. The virtue of honesty requires Engineer A to ensure that the public record accurately reflects Engineer A's actual qualifications. Six months of passive waiting, while the misrepresentation continues to be disseminated to prospective clients, reflects an insufficient exercise of these virtues. The Board's recommendation that Engineer A escalate to a firm principal and document the applicable rules in writing is consistent with what virtue ethics would demand: assertive, persistent, and principled self-advocacy against a misrepresentation of one's own professional identity.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, the marketing director's status as a licensed professional engineer does impose a heightened independent duty to correct the misrepresentation expeditiously, and that duty runs not only to the firm but to the profession and the public. The marketing director is not merely an administrative employee who happened to receive a complaint; the marketing director is a PE whose license carries with it the full weight of the Code's obligations, including the duty under II.5.a not to permit misrepresentation of associates' qualifications and the duty under II.3 to issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. The marketing director's six-month inaction, following an explicit acknowledgment of the error and a promise to correct it, constitutes a distinct ethical violation that is separate from the firm's institutional failure and separate from Engineer A's escalation obligations. The marketing director had both the knowledge and the authority to correct the error — including through low-cost mechanisms such as an errata sheet — and chose not to act. This inaction is not merely a failure of administrative follow-through; it is a failure of professional duty that the marketing director's PE license makes independently actionable before the state board. The marketing director's dual role as a PE and as the person with direct corrective authority makes the six-month inaction particularly difficult to excuse under any deontological framework.
In response to Q401: If Engineer A had escalated the discipline misrepresentation directly to a firm principal at the outset — bypassing the marketing director entirely — that escalation would have been ethically premature under the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm, which requires that an engineer first give the person responsible for the error an opportunity to self-correct before escalating to higher authority. The collegial engagement norm reflects both professional courtesy and the practical recognition that most errors are best corrected at the lowest possible level of organizational authority. Bypassing the marketing director entirely would have denied the marketing director the opportunity to self-correct and would have introduced unnecessary organizational friction at the outset. However, the counterfactual also reveals an important insight: the collegial engagement norm is a procedural constraint, not a substantive one. It governs the sequence of Engineer A's actions, not the ultimate outcome. Had Engineer A bypassed the marketing director and gone directly to a firm principal, the firm principal would presumably have had the same authority and incentive to correct the error, and correction might well have occurred more quickly. The ethical cost of the premature escalation would have been modest — a breach of professional courtesy — while the benefit might have been a faster correction. This suggests that the collegial engagement norm, while ethically sound as a general rule, should not be applied so rigidly as to prevent timely correction of ongoing misrepresentations.
In response to Q402: If the marketing director had deployed an errata sheet or interim correction notice within the first month after Engineer A's notification, the firm's conduct would not have constituted an ethical violation of the same character as the present case. The Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered by Marketing Director's Actual Knowledge is satisfied by prompt and good-faith corrective action, even if the underlying marketing literature cannot be immediately reprinted or redistributed. An errata sheet distributed to all recipients of the original literature within a reasonable period — say, thirty days — would have demonstrated the firm's commitment to accuracy and would have substantially mitigated the risk of client reliance on the misrepresentation. The Marketing Communication Currency Obligation does not require instantaneous correction; it requires expeditious correction after actual notice. A one-month corrective effort, using available low-cost mechanisms, would have satisfied this obligation. The firm's ethical violation in the present case is therefore not the original error — which may have been purely inadvertent — but the six-month failure to deploy corrective mechanisms that were readily available. This conclusion reinforces the importance of the errata sheet mechanism as a practical tool for satisfying the profession's marketing accuracy obligations without requiring the immediate reprinting of all affected literature.
In response to Q403: If a prospective client had actually retained the firm specifically because of Engineer A's misrepresented electrical engineering credentials and subsequently suffered harm from Engineer A's lack of electrical competence, Engineer A would bear meaningful personal ethical responsibility for having failed to escalate the correction beyond the marketing director within a reasonable time. The ethical responsibility would not be equivalent to that of the firm or the marketing director — who had direct authority over the marketing materials — but it would be real and non-trivial. Engineer A's initial notification to the marketing director satisfied the collegial engagement obligation, but the six-month failure to escalate further, during which time the misrepresentation continued to be actively disseminated, means that Engineer A had the means and opportunity to reduce the risk of client harm and chose not to act. Under II.5.a, the prohibition on permitting misrepresentation of one's qualifications is not discharged by a single notification that fails to produce correction. Engineer A's continued passive association with the misrepresentation, after the marketing director's promise proved hollow, would be difficult to defend if a client suffered actual harm as a result. The legal exposure would depend on jurisdiction-specific rules, but the ethical exposure under the Code is clear: an engineer who knows that their credentials are being misrepresented in active marketing materials and takes no further action after an initial failed notification bears a share of the moral responsibility for any resulting client harm.
The tension between the Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation and the Engineering Self-Policing Obligation is resolved in this case by treating time as the dispositive variable. The Board's conclusion implicitly holds that internal escalation is not merely a procedural courtesy but a substantive ethical requirement — one that must be pursued actively and persistently before external reporting becomes warranted. However, the six-month inaction threshold functions as a temporal boundary condition: once internal channels have demonstrably failed to produce correction within a reasonable period, continued passive reliance on those channels ceases to satisfy the self-policing obligation. The case teaches that these two principles are not genuinely in conflict when properly sequenced — internal escalation is the first-order obligation, and external reporting is the second-order obligation triggered only when internal escalation is exhausted or demonstrably futile. The resolution favors internal escalation to a firm principal as the next step precisely because that avenue has not yet been tried, meaning the self-policing obligation can still be satisfied internally without resort to external reporting.
The Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation and the Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered by Marketing Director's Actual Knowledge exist in genuine tension in this case, and the Board's resolution reveals an important principle-prioritization hierarchy: collegial engagement is a front-loaded obligation that is satisfied by the initial notification, not an open-ended license for indefinite deference. Once the marketing director received actual notice and made an explicit correction promise, the collegial engagement norm was fully discharged. After six months of inaction, continued deference to the marketing director no longer reflects collegial professionalism — it reflects passive acquiescence in an ongoing misrepresentation. The case teaches that the Expeditious Correction Obligation, once triggered by actual knowledge, progressively displaces the Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation as time elapses without corrective action. The marketing director's status as a licensed professional engineer independently amplifies this displacement, because a PE's actual knowledge of a misrepresentation carries a heightened duty of expeditious correction that a non-engineer marketing employee would not bear. The Board's recommendation to escalate to a firm principal reflects the conclusion that collegial deference has a finite shelf life measured against the currency of the misrepresentation.
The Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test, drawn from the BER 83-1 and BER 90-4 precedents, interacts with the Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition in a way that reveals a critical asymmetry: intent calibrates the severity of the original violation, but it does not excuse the persistence of the misrepresentation after actual knowledge is acquired. The comparative precedent distinguishing BER 83-1 from BER 90-4 shows that a negligent-origin misrepresentation may initially warrant a more lenient assessment than an intentional one. However, once actual knowledge is established — as it was here when the marketing director acknowledged the error — the negligent-origin defense is temporally extinguished. Continued inaction after actual knowledge effectively converts a negligent misrepresentation into a reckless or willful one, because the firm can no longer claim ignorance of the error. This synthesis teaches that the Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition has a quasi-absolute character with respect to post-notice persistence: the intent-differentiated analysis governs the initial violation assessment, but the Marketing Communication Currency Obligation governs the ongoing duty to correct, and that ongoing duty is indifferent to the original intent. The firm's argument that Engineer A's mislabeling is a minor, non-key-employee-level error analogous to BER 90-4 is therefore weakened — not because the discipline mislabeling is necessarily more material than a departing employee listing, but because six months of post-notice inaction is categorically distinguishable from the two-week notice-period oversight at issue in BER 90-4.
The false credential claim persists in public materials; the marketing director's inaction transforms a correctable error into a sustained ethical violation; Engineer A's obligation shifts from reporting to escalation
Month 0 through Month 6 (ongoing non-correction)
Following Engineer A's report, the marketing director acknowledges the error and commits to correcting it, but the correction does not occur, creating a gap between stated intention and organizational action. This gap is not itself a decision but an outcome: the state of the literature remains unchanged despite the promise.
Should Engineer A escalate the uncorrected discipline misrepresentation to a firm principal in writing, or continue deferring to the marketing director's unfulfilled promise of correction?
Engineer A, an EIT whose engineering discipline has been misrepresented in firm marketing literature for six months after notifying the marketing director, must decide whether to escalate the uncorrected misrepresentation to a firm principal or continue waiting for the marketing director to act.
Bring the uncorrected misrepresentation directly to a firm principal in writing, citing the applicable state board rules of professional conduct and the six-month failure to act, so that the firm has a documented internal opportunity to remedy the error before any external reporting is considered.
Allow additional time beyond six months for the marketing director to fulfill the correction promise, on the grounds that the error was inadvertent, the marketing director has acknowledged it, and organizational processes for reprinting materials may require extended lead time.
Bypass further internal escalation and report the sustained misrepresentation directly to the state board of professional engineers, on the grounds that six months of inaction demonstrates that internal channels are ineffective and the public is at ongoing risk of relying on the misrepresented credential.
Engineer A Discipline-Misrepresented EIT Staff Engineer
Should the marketing director deploy an expeditious low-cost corrective mechanism — such as an errata sheet — to remedy the known discipline misrepresentation, or treat the correction as a routine administrative matter to be addressed in the next scheduled reprint cycle?
The marketing director, a licensed professional engineer with direct authority over firm promotional materials, must decide how to respond to the known discipline misrepresentation after six months of inaction following an explicit promise to Engineer A that the error would be corrected.
Distribute an errata sheet or corrective cover letter to all known recipients of the promotional literature within a short period, clearly identifying the discipline error and stating Engineer A's correct mechanical engineering classification, without waiting for the next scheduled reprint cycle.
Log the discipline correction as a pending revision to be incorporated into the next scheduled reprint of the promotional literature, treating it as a routine editorial update subject to normal production timelines rather than an urgent corrective obligation.
Ensure that all newly produced marketing materials correctly identify Engineer A's discipline going forward, while taking no action to correct or recall already-distributed literature on the grounds that the original error was inadvertent and the cost of retroactive correction outweighs the risk of client reliance.
Does Engineer A bear ongoing personal ethical exposure by remaining passively associated with the uncorrected discipline misrepresentation after six months, and must Engineer A take additional affirmative steps to protect against that exposure?
Engineer A must assess whether six months of passive association with the uncorrected discipline misrepresentation — after a single notification to the marketing director — constitutes personal ethical exposure under the Code's prohibition on permitting misrepresentation of one's qualifications, or whether the initial notification fully discharged Engineer A's personal duty.
Escalate the matter to a firm principal in writing, explicitly documenting Engineer A's objection to the continued misrepresentation of their discipline and citing the applicable Code provisions, thereby creating a record that Engineer A did not passively acquiesce in the ongoing misrepresentation.
Conclude that the initial notification to the marketing director fully discharged Engineer A's personal ethical obligation under II.5.a, and take no further action on the grounds that the responsibility for correction now rests entirely with the firm and the marketing director.
Send a second written notification to the marketing director — rather than escalating to a firm principal — reiterating the correction request and documenting the six-month lapse, on the grounds that a second collegial attempt at the same level is warranted before bypassing the marketing director.
Should the firm treat the discipline misrepresentation as a minor, non-key-employee-level brochure inaccuracy analogous to BER 90-4 — warranting correction only at the next reprint — or as a pertinent-fact misrepresentation that has ripened into a reckless violation requiring immediate corrective action?
The firm must assess whether the six-month persistence of the discipline misrepresentation after the marketing director's actual knowledge transforms the character of the violation from a negligent typographical oversight into a reckless or constructively intentional misrepresentation under the Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test, and whether the BER 90-4 precedent provides any shelter for the firm's continued inaction.
Classify the discipline mislabeling as a pertinent-fact misrepresentation that has ripened into a reckless violation after six months of post-notice inaction, and direct the marketing director to deploy immediate corrective mechanisms — errata sheets, cover letters, or a reprint — without waiting for the next scheduled production cycle.
Treat the discipline mislabeling as analogous to the non-key-employee listing in BER 90-4 — a minor, inadvertent inaccuracy that does not rise to an ethical violation — and schedule correction in the next routine reprint cycle without deploying interim corrective mechanisms.
Correct the discipline label in all future marketing materials immediately, while commissioning an internal assessment of whether any prospective clients actually received and relied on the misrepresenting literature before deciding whether retroactive corrective notices are warranted.
After six months of marketing director inaction, should Engineer A treat internal escalation to a firm principal as the required next step under the graduated escalation framework, or has the duration of inaction demonstrated that internal channels are sufficiently ineffective to trigger an immediate self-policing obligation to report externally to the state board?
Engineer A must determine whether the Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation and the Engineering Self-Policing Obligation operate sequentially or in genuine conflict after six months of marketing director inaction, and whether the self-policing obligation now compels external reporting to the state board or whether escalation to a firm principal remains the appropriate next step.
Bring the matter to a firm principal in writing as the next step in the graduated escalation framework, preserving the internal correction pathway and giving the firm a full opportunity to remedy the misrepresentation before any external reporting is considered.
Conclude that six months of inaction by a licensed PE with direct corrective authority demonstrates that internal channels are ineffective, and report the sustained misrepresentation directly to the state board of professional engineers to fulfill the self-policing obligation without further internal delay.
Escalate to a firm principal in writing while simultaneously notifying the marketing director and firm principal that if corrective action is not taken within a defined additional period — such as thirty days — Engineer A will consider the internal channels exhausted and will report externally to the state board.
Should Engineer A treat the risk of prospective client harm from credential reliance as an independent accelerant of the escalation obligation — requiring more urgent or more comprehensive action than the six-month inaction threshold alone would dictate — or should Engineer A apply the standard graduated escalation framework without modification for client-harm risk?
Engineer A must assess whether the risk of prospective client harm from relying on the misrepresented electrical engineering credential independently accelerates the escalation timeline beyond what the six-month inaction threshold alone would require, and whether the consequentialist harm calculus or the deontological public-protection rationale changes the urgency or form of the required corrective action.
Escalate to a firm principal immediately and frame the escalation explicitly around the risk of prospective client harm — not merely the six-month inaction threshold — emphasizing that the firm is actively disseminating the misrepresenting literature in an ongoing marketing campaign and that client reliance harm could occur before the next scheduled reprint.
Treat the client-harm risk as a background consideration rather than an independent accelerant, and apply the standard graduated escalation framework — escalating to a firm principal on the same timeline and in the same manner as would be warranted by the six-month inaction threshold alone, without heightened urgency.
Postpone escalation to a firm principal until there is evidence that a specific prospective client has actually received and relied on the misrepresenting literature, on the grounds that the harm is currently speculative and the graduated escalation framework should not be accelerated based on hypothetical client reliance.
EIT Non-Passive-Acceptance Discipline Misrepresentation Engineer A Own Identity
Engineer A's EIT status does not diminish the ethical obligation to resist ongoing misrepresentation of their own professional discipline identity in firm promotional materials.
EIT Discipline Misrepresentation Non-Passive-Acceptance Constraint
Engineer A, as an EIT, was constrained from passively accepting the ongoing misrepresentation of their engineering discipline in firm marketing materials, notwithstanding their subordinate organizational position, and was required to take affirmative corrective steps including escalation after the initial notification failed.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint
Engineer A is an EIT who is employed by a medium-sized consulting engineering firm
Throughout the six-month period of inaction and beyond
Engineer A alerts the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature
after a period of six months, the error is not corrected
Professional engineering ethics frameworks
Engineer A alerts the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature, and the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected
Engineer A in determining next steps after the marketing director's promise to correct the error went unfulfilled
Provides a structured framework for Engineer A to evaluate options after internal notification to the marketing director failed to produce correction over six months, including whether further escalation, refusal to be associated with the materials, or external reporting is ethically warranted
Engineer A Collegial First Report to Marketing Director
Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Delivery Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to approach the marketing director directly and collegially as a first step upon discovering the discipline misrepresentation, rather than immediately escalating to firm principals or external authorities, consistent with the collegial-first reporting principle.
Engineer A's initial response to discovering the misrepresentation was to alert the marketing director collegially, fulfilling the collegial pre-reporting engagement obligation
Direct approach to the marketing director to alert them to the discipline error in promotional literature before taking any further action
Engineer A alerts the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature, and the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected.
Engineer A Credential Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Six Month Inaction Marketing Director
Engineer A reported the discipline mislabeling to the marketing director, who promised correction but took no action over six months, triggering Engineer A's escalation obligation.
Credential Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Constraint
Engineer A, having notified the marketing director of the discipline misrepresentation and received a promise of correction that went unfulfilled for six months, was constrained to escalate the matter to a higher firm authority (e.g., firm principal) rather than continuing to passively accept the uncorrected misrepresentation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Credential Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Constraint
After six months of inaction following initial notification to the marketing director
Engineer A Discipline Misrepresentation Recognition
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the firm's marketing literature misrepresented their engineering discipline by listing them as an electrical engineer despite holding a mechanical engineering degree and performing exclusively mechanical engineering services.
Engineer A, an EIT with a mechanical engineering degree, identified the discipline misrepresentation in the firm's marketing campaign literature
Discovery that firm marketing campaign listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer, and recognition that this constituted an error requiring correction
Engineer A learns that the firm has begun a marketing campaign and in its literature lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer.
Engineer A has a degree in mechanical engineering and has performed services almost exclusively in the field of mechanical engineering.
The misclassification shifts from an unknown organizational error to a known ethical obligation; Engineer A is now a morally responsible agent who must act
Before Month 0 (discovery precedes report)
Engineer A becomes aware that the firm's marketing literature incorrectly identifies their engineering discipline, transforming a latent error into an active known problem requiring response. This moment of discovery triggers Engineer A's personal ethical obligations under professional codes.
Engineer A EIT Discipline Misrepresentation Escalation Persistence Firm Principal
EIT Discipline Misrepresentation Escalation Persistence Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that six months of inaction by the marketing director following the initial report of discipline misrepresentation required escalation to a firm principal, calibrating the escalation appropriately to the EIT's junior role while fulfilling the ongoing obligation not to permit the misrepresentation to continue.
After six months of inaction by the marketing director following Engineer A's initial report, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to a firm principal.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer A should raise the issue with a firm principal after six months of inaction by the marketing director, having already fulfilled the collegial pre-reporting engagement obligation by first approaching the marketing director.
we believe that after a period of six months during which the error was not corrected, Engineer A should raise the issue with a principal in the firm.
While we believe Engineer A has taken an appropriate step in alerting the marketing director to the error in the brochure
Engineer A EIT Discipline Misrepresentation Non-Passive-Acceptance Escalation Firm Principal
Engineer A (mechanical EIT) reported discipline mislabeling to marketing director; after six months of inaction, Engineer A's ethical obligation requires escalation to firm principal despite EIT status
Engineer A, as an EIT, was constrained from passively accepting the ongoing discipline mislabeling in the firm's marketing brochure after six months of inaction by the marketing director, and was obligated to escalate the matter to a firm principal — with Engineer A's unlicensed EIT status not diminishing this escalation obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case reasoning on EIT ethical obligations
After six months elapsed from Engineer A's initial notification to the marketing director
While we believe Engineer A has taken an appropriate step in alerting the marketing director to the error in the brochure...
Engineer A EIT Status in Mechanical Engineering Domain
Engineer A has a degree in mechanical engineering and has performed services almost exclusively in the field of mechanical engineering
Engineer A's professional competence profile — mechanical engineering background, EIT status, no electrical engineering qualifications
Engineer A's professional formation and employment in mechanical engineering
Possible acceleration of correction but also possible conflict with employer
Potential professional friction with the marketing director or firm leadership
Risk of being perceived as difficult or insubordinate within the firm
Obligation to issue truthful and objective public statements (Code Section I.3)
Obligation to protect Engineer A's own professional integrity and accurate credential representation
Obligation to protect clients and potential clients from false impressions about engineering qualifications
Obligation to take appropriate steps to ensure offers of professional services avoid misleading or deceptive language
Avoidance of deceptive professional representations
Professional responsibility to pursue correction through available internal channels
Proportionate escalation in response to sustained inaction
Engineer A (EIT, Mechanical Engineer), recommended action
Secure actual correction of the misleading marketing literature by engaging a higher authority within the firm who has the power and responsibility to mandate corrective action
Failure to escalate sooner could be seen as insufficient diligence, though the Board characterizes the initial report as an 'appropriate step'
Communication skills to raise the issue appropriately with firm leadership
Knowledge of engineering ethics obligations and applicable code provisions
Professional judgment to recognize when internal escalation is ethically required
Post-six-month mark, recommended action per discussion section
After six months of uncorrected misrepresentation, Engineer A is advised by the Board to make the deliberate decision to escalate the unresolved issue to a principal in the firm, moving beyond the initial report to the marketing director.
Engineer A Inadvertent Violation Collegial Counsel Priority Initial Notification Marketing Director
The discipline mislabeling appeared to be an inadvertent oversight (analogous to BER 90-4) rather than intentional misrepresentation, making collegial notification the appropriate first step before any escalation.
Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Priority Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to first approach the marketing director collegially about the discipline mislabeling before escalating to higher authority or external reporting — a step Engineer A appropriately fulfilled by alerting the marketing director directly — consistent with the collegial-first approach for what appeared to be an inadvertent oversight rather than intentional misconduct.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Priority Constraint; BER Case 90-4
At the time of initial discovery of the discipline mislabeling
the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Non-Sufficiency Recognition
Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that having reported the discipline misrepresentation once and then waiting six months without further action would constitute passive acquiescence in an ongoing ethical violation, and that continued inaction after the promised correction went unfulfilled required affirmative escalation.
Engineer A faced the risk of becoming complicit in the ongoing misrepresentation through passive acquiescence if escalation was not pursued after the marketing director's inaction
Recognition that six months of inaction following a promised correction required escalation rather than continued passive waiting
However, after a period of six months, the error is not corrected.
Engineer A, having reported the discipline misrepresentation and received a promise of correction that went unfulfilled for six months, was obligated to escalate.
Possible disruption to ongoing marketing campaign
Potential friction with marketing department or firm leadership
Obligation to avoid misleading or deceptive representations in solicitation of professional employment
Obligation to practice only within areas of competence
Obligation to protect the public from false impressions about engineering qualifications
Avoidance of deceptive or misleading professional representations
Correct the misleading misclassification in the firm's promotional literature to accurately reflect Engineer A's mechanical engineering background
Ability to identify misrepresentation of professional credentials
Knowledge of engineering ethics obligations regarding truthful statements
Professional communication skills to raise the issue appropriately
Upon discovery of the error, unspecified date
Engineer A, upon discovering that the firm's marketing literature incorrectly lists them as an electrical engineer, deliberately chooses to alert the marketing director to the error rather than ignore it or remain silent.
Engineer A Reports Misclassification (Action 1) → Correction Promise Made, Not Kept (Event 3)
Following Engineer A's report, the marketing director acknowledges the error and commits to correction, but the promise is not kept, with Engineer A's report being the direct trigger for the acknowledgment and unfulfilled commitment
Engineer A Reports Misclassification (Action 1)
Without Engineer A's report, the marketing director may never have been formally confronted with the error, and no promise would have been made; had the marketing director responded with immediate correction rather than a deferred promise, Event 3 would not have occurred in its harmful form
Correction Promise Made, Not Kept (Event 3)
Engineer A's formal report creating an explicit organizational awareness of the error
Marketing director's choice to promise future correction rather than immediate action
Marketing director's decision to acknowledge rather than dispute or investigate
Marketing Director (for the unfulfilled promise); Engineer A (for the triggering report, which was ethically required)
Engineer A's report + marketing director's acknowledgment without immediate action = unfulfilled correction promise
Engineer A Six-Month Inaction Escalation Persistence
Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that six months of inaction following the marketing director's promise of correction constituted an unreasonable delay, and to escalate the matter to a firm principal rather than acquiescing in continued misrepresentation of their engineering discipline.
After six months without correction despite the marketing director's promise, Engineer A faced the obligation to escalate to a higher organizational authority
Recognition that the six-month period of inaction required escalation beyond the marketing director to a firm principal
Engineer A was obligated to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to a firm principal after six months of inaction by the marketing director.
Engineer A Six-Month Inaction Firm Principal Escalation Trigger Discipline Misrepresentation
Engineer A reported discipline mislabeling to marketing director; marketing director promised correction but took no action for six months; Engineer A's next step is escalation to firm principal
After six months of inaction by the marketing director following Engineer A's initial report of the discipline mislabeling, Engineer A was constrained to escalate the matter to a principal in the firm, and could not indefinitely passively accept the ongoing misrepresentation solely on the basis of the marketing director's prior promise of correction.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 90-4 reasoning applied to current facts
After six months elapsed from Engineer A's initial notification to the marketing director without corrective action
Engineer A alerts marketing director to error before six-month period of inaction
Engineer A alerts the marketing director...to the error in the promotional literature, and the marketing director indicates that the error will be corrected. However, after a period of six months, the error is not corrected.
Engineer A alerts marketing director to error
Engineer A discovers the error meets Engineer A alerts marketing director
Engineer A learns that the firm has begun a marketing campaign and in its literature lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer. Engineer A alerts the marketing director...to the error.
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
Professional engineering norms and state licensing statutes
in its literature lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer
Engineer A has a degree in mechanical engineering
Engineer A and the firm in determining the proper representation of engineering discipline in marketing literature
Governs the accurate use of engineering discipline designations (mechanical vs. electrical engineer) in firm promotional materials; establishes obligations for organizations to accurately represent the qualifications and specializations of staff
Firm BER Brochure Precedent Synthesis Discipline Misrepresentation
The firm and its responsible engineers needed the capability to retrieve and synthesize BER precedents on brochure personnel misrepresentation — including BER Cases 83-1 and 90-4 — to correctly assess the ethical obligations arising from listing Engineer A under the wrong engineering discipline in marketing materials.
The BER precedent cases on brochure misrepresentation provide the normative framework for evaluating the firm's obligation to correct the discipline misrepresentation in its marketing campaign
Application of BER precedent framework to determine that listing an engineer under the wrong discipline in a marketing campaign constitutes a misrepresentation of pertinent facts
Firm (through its responsible engineers and ethics reviewers)
The firm was obligated to evaluate its marketing campaign materials against the pertinent-fact dual-element misrepresentation test.
Firm Brochure Personnel Title Accuracy Engineer A Discipline Designation
Firm's promotional literature listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer when Engineer A holds a mechanical engineering degree and has practiced exclusively in mechanical engineering.
Firm Brochure Personnel Title Accuracy Constraint
The firm's marketing brochure was required to accurately represent Engineer A's engineering discipline as mechanical engineering, not electrical engineering, in all public-facing personnel listings.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Firm Brochure Personnel Title Accuracy Constraint
the firm has begun a marketing campaign and in its literature lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer
Throughout the duration of the marketing campaign
Firm Competence-Discipline Solicitation Accuracy Self-Assessment Marketing Campaign
Competence-Discipline Solicitation Accuracy Self-Assessment Capability
The firm was required to ensure that its marketing campaign brochure accurately identified Engineer A's engineering discipline as mechanical engineering rather than electrical engineering, recognizing that discipline misclassification misleads prospective clients about the firm's actual technical capabilities.
The firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A — a mechanical engineering EIT — as an electrical engineer, creating a misrepresentation of the firm's discipline-specific capabilities in solicitation materials.
Failure to accurately represent Engineer A's mechanical engineering discipline in the firm's marketing brochure, listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer and thereby misrepresenting the firm's electrical engineering capabilities to prospective clients.
Engineers, as with all professionals are admonished to perform professional services only in areas of their competence.
where the engineer is seeking professional engagements, the engineer must always take all reasonable steps to avoid misleading and deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment.
Firm Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse Marketing Correction Delay Engineer A Discipline
Firm's marketing director failed to correct Engineer A's discipline mislabeling for six months; logistical difficulty of reprinting brochures does not excuse failure to deploy low-cost alternatives
Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse for Marketing Correction Delay Constraint
The firm and marketing director were constrained from using the logistical difficulties of distributing, correcting, and reprinting brochures as a justification for six months of inaction in correcting the discipline mislabeling of Engineer A, with logistical difficulty recognized as a factor in choosing the correction method (e.g., errata sheet vs. reprint) but not as an excuse for indefinite delay.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 90-4 guidance
while we recognize basic logistical problems involved in distributing, correcting and reprinting brochures and other promotional material, we believe the marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created.
Throughout the six-month period of inaction following Engineer A's notification
While the Board recognized the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, the Board noted it was important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
Firm Marketing Brochure Case-by-Case Pertinence Review Engineer A Discipline Mislabeling
Firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer; case-by-case review required to determine whether this constitutes a violation of the solicitation accuracy obligation
Professional Solicitation Misleading Language Avoidance Constraint
The firm was constrained to conduct a case-by-case review of whether the discipline mislabeling of Engineer A in its marketing brochure constituted misleading, deceptive, or untruthful language in the solicitation of professional employment, rather than applying a blanket rule — with the case-by-case methodology being the operative standard for determining whether the ethical line was crossed.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case-by-case review methodology
Throughout the distribution of the marketing campaign brochure
Firm Marketing Brochure Negligent-Origin Non-Excuse After Actual Knowledge Engineer A Discipline
Firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A (mechanical EIT) as an electrical engineer; marketing director was notified but took no corrective action for six months
Negligent-Origin Misrepresentation Actual-Knowledge Non-Excuse Constraint
Although the initial listing of Engineer A as an electrical engineer arose from negligent oversight rather than intentional deception, the firm and marketing director were constrained from treating that negligent origin as an excuse for continued inaction after Engineer A's notification established actual knowledge of the error; continued inaction after actual knowledge independently raises questions of improper and unethical conduct.
While there is no indication that what has occurred under these facts is anything other than an negligent oversight, continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.
From the moment Engineer A notified the marketing director of the error onward
Firm Marketing Campaign Discipline Misrepresentation Engineer A Electrical Label
Firm launched a marketing campaign listing Engineer A, a mechanical engineering EIT, as an electrical engineer despite there being other actual electrical engineers in the firm.
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation in Marketing Prohibition Constraint
The firm was prohibited from listing Engineer A — a mechanical engineering EIT with no electrical engineering qualifications — as an electrical engineer in its marketing campaign literature, as this constitutes a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact (engineering discipline) to prospective clients.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 83-1; Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition
From the moment the marketing campaign literature was published and continuing until corrected
There are other electrical engineers in the firm
Firm Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Test Application Marketing Campaign
The firm needed the capability to apply the pertinent-fact dual-element misrepresentation test to its marketing campaign materials — assessing whether listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer constituted a representation of pertinent facts distributed with intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications — before distributing those materials.
The firm's marketing campaign listed Engineer A under the wrong engineering discipline, triggering the pertinent-fact misrepresentation analysis under NSPE Code Section II.5.a
Failure to apply the dual-element test prior to distributing marketing materials that misrepresented Engineer A's engineering discipline
Firm (through its responsible engineers)
The firm was obligated to evaluate its marketing campaign materials against the pertinent-fact dual-element misrepresentation test before distributing them.
Firm Principal Discipline Misrepresentation Corrective Authority
Firm Principal Discipline Misrepresentation Corrective Authority Exercise Capability
The firm principal needed the capability to receive Engineer A's escalated report of the discipline misrepresentation, exercise organizational authority to mandate correction of the marketing materials, and verify that the correction was implemented — recognizing that the principal bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of firm promotional representations.
The firm principal was the appropriate escalation target for Engineer A after the marketing director failed to correct the discipline misrepresentation over six months
Identification as the appropriate escalation target after six months of marketing director inaction, with authority to mandate and verify correction
The firm principal bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of firm promotional representations.
Firm Principal Inaction-Perpetuating Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration
Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration Capability
The firm principal was required to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A in the firm's marketing brochure constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts — evaluating whether Engineer A's mechanical engineering discipline was material to the firm's solicitation of electrical engineering work.
The firm principal, as the escalation target after six months of marketing director inaction, needed to assess the pertinence of the discipline misrepresentation and exercise authority to mandate correction.
The BER's application of the case-by-case pertinence framework to distinguish the present case from BER 83-1 and BER 90-4, identifying that the discipline misrepresentation could mislead clients about the firm's actual technical capabilities.
Firm Principal Inaction-Perpetuating Firm Principal Engineer Corrective Authority Exercise
The firm principal, as the escalation target after six months of marketing director inaction, was required to exercise organizational authority to mandate and verify correction of the discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A in the firm's marketing brochure, including directing the marketing function to update all affected materials.
The firm principal was the appropriate escalation target after the marketing director failed to correct the discipline misrepresentation for six months, and bore ultimate organizational authority to mandate correction.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer A should escalate to a firm principal after six months of inaction, implying that the firm principal bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring correction of the misrepresentation.
continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.
Firm Professional Solicitation Misleading Language Avoidance Engineer A Discipline Marketing Campaign
Firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A (mechanical EIT) as an electrical engineer in a marketing campaign soliciting professional engagements
The firm was constrained to take all reasonable steps to ensure that its marketing campaign materials — including the brochure listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer — avoided misleading, deceptive, and untruthful language, with this obligation grounded in the convergence of the duty to practice within areas of competence, the duty to issue truthful public statements, and the duty to avoid deceptive acts in solicitation of professional employment.
NSPE Code Section I.3; NSPE Code provisions on solicitation of professional employment
engineers have a basic ethical responsibility to take appropriate steps to ensure that such offers avoid language misleading, deceptive and untruthful language.
Firm Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Marketing Campaign
Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
The firm needed the capability to recognize that its marketing campaign materials, by listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer rather than a mechanical engineer, contained a misrepresentation of fact in solicitation materials that violated professional ethics obligations — and that this misrepresentation was not merely a clerical error but a substantive misclassification of engineering discipline.
The firm's marketing campaign constituted a solicitation in which Engineer A's engineering discipline was materially misrepresented
Failure to recognize and prevent the discipline misclassification in marketing campaign materials before distribution
The firm was obligated to ensure that its marketing campaign materials were truthful and non-deceptive.
Escalating ethical culpability as inaction persists beyond a reasonable correction period
Ongoing misrepresentation of Engineer A as an electrical engineer to clients and potential clients
Risk of clients relying on false credential information in engagement decisions
Organizational accountability for marketing materials
negligent; no evidence of malicious intent but sustained failure to act despite actual knowledge
No affirmative corrective outcome was pursued; continued distribution of existing marketing materials served firm's short-term marketing convenience
Ability to produce and distribute errata sheets or corrective cover letters
Organizational authority to halt distribution of or correct existing marketing materials
Project management capacity to reprioritize correction of known errors
Six-month period following Engineer A's initial report
Obligation to expeditiously correct known inaccuracies in promotional materials (BER Case 90-4 precedent)
Obligation to protect Engineer A from ongoing professional misrepresentation
Obligation to protect clients and potential clients from false impressions
Over a six-month period following the marketing director's acknowledgment, the firm as an organizational actor makes no corrective action to update or retract the misleading marketing literature, representing a sustained decision of inaction despite actual knowledge of the error.
Firm Sustains Inaction Over Six Months (Action 3) → Engineer A Escalates to Firm Principal (Action 4)
After six months of uncorrected misrepresentation, Engineer A is advised by the Board to make the demand directly to the firm principal, with the six-month inaction period serving as the precipitating condition for escalation
Firm Sustains Inaction Over Six Months (Action 3)
Had the firm corrected the misclassification at any point during the six-month period, escalation to the firm principal would have been unnecessary; had the Board not advised escalation, Engineer A may have lacked a clear procedural path forward
Engineer A Escalates to Firm Principal (Action 4)
Board of Engineering Ethics guidance advising escalation as appropriate next step
Engineer A's continued professional obligation to ensure correction of false credential representation
Six months of organizational inaction following acknowledged error
Firm as organization (for creating conditions requiring escalation); Engineer A (for executing the ethical duty to escalate)
Sustained organizational inaction beyond reasonable correction period + professional ethics board guidance + Engineer A's ongoing duty = escalation to firm principal
Lowest Level Resolution Priority Engineer A Marketing Director Before Firm Principal Escalation
Engineer A appropriately began at the lowest level (marketing director) but after six months of inaction, the lowest-level resolution constraint was exhausted and escalation to firm principals became obligatory.
Lowest-Level Resolution Priority Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to first attempt resolution at the lowest organizational level (marketing director) before escalating to firm principals — a step Engineer A fulfilled — but this constraint does not permit indefinite deferral when the lowest-level resolution fails after six months.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Lowest-Level Resolution Priority Constraint
From initial discovery through the six-month inaction period
Marketing Director Acknowledges But Defers Correction
Continued distribution of misleading marketing materials
Ongoing misrepresentation of Engineer A's credentials to clients and potential clients
Potential ethical and legal liability for the firm
Verbal acknowledgment of the reported error
Expeditious correction of known errors in marketing materials
Responsibility of engineers in leadership roles to uphold ethical standards
deliberate acknowledgment with negligent follow-through
Presumably intended to correct the error at some future point, but no concrete corrective steps were initiated
Ability to implement low-cost corrective measures such as errata sheets
Authority to initiate corrections to firm marketing materials
Knowledge of engineering ethics obligations regarding truthful public statements
Shortly after Engineer A's report, unspecified date
Obligation to protect Engineer A from professional misrepresentation
Obligation to protect clients and potential clients from false impressions about firm capabilities
The marketing director, also a licensed engineer, acknowledges the error reported by Engineer A and promises correction but takes no immediate or timely corrective action, effectively deferring resolution indefinitely.
Marketing Director Acknowledges But Defers Correction (Action 2) → Six-Month Inaction Threshold Reached (Event 4)
The marketing director acknowledges the error and commits to correction but defers action; over a six-month period following the marketing director's acknowledgment, the firm as an organization sustains inaction, constituting a threshold event
Marketing Director Acknowledges But Defers Correction (Action 2)
Had the marketing director acted on the acknowledged error promptly, the six-month inaction threshold would not have been reached; had the firm imposed a correction deadline, deferral alone would have been insufficient to cause the threshold event
Six-Month Inaction Threshold Reached (Event 4)
Absence of organizational enforcement mechanism to compel timely correction
Continued publication of uncorrected materials during deferral period
Marketing director's decision to defer rather than immediately correct
Marketing Director (primary) and Firm as organization (secondary)
Deferral decision by responsible authority + organizational failure to enforce correction + passage of six months = inaction threshold reached
Marketing Director Engineering Discipline Accuracy Maintenance
Marketing Material Engineering Discipline Accuracy Maintenance Capability
The marketing director, as the engineer responsible for the firm's promotional materials, needed the capability to maintain ongoing accuracy of those materials with respect to the engineering disciplines of listed personnel, including verifying that Engineer A was correctly classified as a mechanical engineer rather than an electrical engineer.
The marketing director bore responsibility for the accuracy of the firm's marketing campaign materials and failed to prevent or promptly correct the discipline misclassification
Failure to maintain discipline accuracy in the marketing campaign literature, resulting in Engineer A being listed as an electrical engineer
Engineer A alerts the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature.
Marketing Director Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Deployment
Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment Capability
The marketing director, as a licensed professional engineer responsible for firm promotional materials, possessed but failed to exercise the capability to deploy errata sheets and other low-cost correction mechanisms upon receiving actual knowledge of Engineer A's discipline misrepresentation.
The marketing director was informed by Engineer A of the discipline misrepresentation but took no corrective action for six months, despite the availability of errata sheets and other low-cost correction tools.
Failure to deploy available errata sheet correction mechanism for six months after being informed of the discipline misrepresentation, despite the BER's identification of this as a simple and inexpensive available remedy.
this could take the form of a simple and inexpensive errata sheet inserted into the brochure.
In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time
the marketing director has an ethical obligation to take expeditious action to correct the error
Marketing Director Errata Sheet Low-Cost Mechanism Deployment Engineer A Discipline Correction
Marketing director acknowledged the error but failed to deploy any correction mechanism — including low-cost options such as errata sheets — for six months after Engineer A's notification
Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Proportional Deployment Constraint
The marketing director was constrained to deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters, or strike-outs — within a reasonable period of time after being notified by Engineer A of the discipline mislabeling, and could not use logistical difficulty or printing cost as justification for six months of inaction.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 90-4 guidance on correction mechanisms
From notification by Engineer A through the six-month period of inaction
In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies.
Marketing Director Marketing Material Accuracy Currency Maintenance Engineer A Discipline Six Month Inaction
Marketing director acknowledged the error and promised correction but took no corrective action over six months, during which the inaccurate marketing literature continued to be distributed.
Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
The marketing director, as a licensed PE responsible for promotional materials, was constrained to maintain ongoing accuracy of those materials and was prohibited from allowing a known discipline mislabeling of Engineer A to persist uncorrected for six months after being notified.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint; BER Case 90-4
From the date of Engineer A's initial notification through the six-month period of inaction
Marketing Director Marketing Material Engineering Discipline Accuracy Maintenance Engineer A
The marketing director, serving in a marketing role within the engineering firm, was required to maintain ongoing accuracy of promotional materials with respect to the specific engineering disciplines of listed personnel, including verifying that Engineer A was listed under their actual mechanical engineering discipline rather than as an electrical engineer.
The marketing director was responsible for the firm's promotional materials and failed to maintain discipline-level accuracy, creating a misrepresentation that persisted for at least six months after actual knowledge.
Failure to maintain discipline-level accuracy in the firm's marketing brochure, resulting in Engineer A being listed as an electrical engineer despite holding a mechanical engineering degree, and failure to correct this upon actual knowledge for six months.
engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written material is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
Marketing Director Negligent-Origin Actual-Knowledge Inaction Non-Excuse Recognition
Negligent-Origin Actual-Knowledge Inaction Non-Excuse Recognition Capability
The marketing director was required to recognize that the negligent origin of the discipline misrepresentation did not excuse continued inaction after receiving actual knowledge of the error from Engineer A, and that six months of inaction after actual knowledge risked transforming a negligent oversight into an ethical violation.
The marketing director received actual knowledge of the discipline misrepresentation from Engineer A but failed to act for six months, with the BER noting that continued inaction in light of actual knowledge could raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.
Failure to recognize that actual knowledge of the discipline misrepresentation — obtained through Engineer A's direct report — triggered an immediate corrective obligation independent of the error's inadvertent origin.
the Board noted it was in no way condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients
Marketing Director Objective Truthful Public Statement Issuance Marketing Brochure
Objective Truthful Public Statement Issuance Capability
The marketing director, as a licensed professional engineer responsible for firm promotional materials, was required to ensure that the firm's marketing brochure issued objective and truthful statements about personnel qualifications and engineering disciplines, and to correct the discipline misrepresentation upon actual knowledge.
The marketing director was informed of the discipline misrepresentation but failed to correct it, violating the obligation to ensure that firm promotional materials are truthful and non-deceptive.
Failure to correct the discipline misrepresentation in the firm's marketing brochure after being informed by Engineer A, despite the obligation to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner under Code Section I.3.
the engineer has a fundamental obligation to issue public statements in a objective and truthful manner (Code Section I.3.)
the marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created.
Marketing Director PE Dual-Duty Expeditious Correction Engineer A Discipline Clients
Marketing director (PE) was notified by Engineer A of discipline mislabeling but failed to take expeditious corrective action for six months, breaching dual obligations to clients and to Engineer A
Marketing Director PE Expeditious Correction Dual-Duty Constraint
The marketing director, as a professional engineer, was constrained by a dual ethical obligation to expeditiously correct the discipline mislabeling of Engineer A: (1) an obligation to clients and prospective clients to prevent misleading impressions about the firm's engineering capabilities, and (2) an obligation to Engineer A to correct the false representation of Engineer A's professional discipline identity — with the PE credential activating heightened responsibility for both dimensions of this duty.
From the moment of notification by Engineer A through the six-month period of inaction
Marketing Director Promised Correction Follow-Through Failure
Promised Correction Follow-Through Capability
The marketing director lacked or failed to exercise the capability to follow through on the explicit promise to correct Engineer A's discipline misrepresentation in firm promotional materials, resulting in six months of inaction that perpetuated the ethical violation.
The marketing director, upon being alerted by Engineer A, promised correction but failed to follow through for at least six months
Failure to implement the promised correction over a six-month period after explicitly committing to Engineer A that the error would be corrected
Marketing Material Accuracy Currency Maintenance Firm Engineer A Discipline Brochure
Firm's marketing brochure contained inaccurate discipline designation for Engineer A; firm had obligation to maintain accuracy of promotional materials
The firm and marketing director were constrained to continuously maintain and update the marketing brochure to ensure it accurately represented Engineer A's engineering discipline as mechanical engineering rather than electrical engineering, and to take reasonable steps to assure that such written material was as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 90-4 guidance on marketing material accuracy
Throughout the distribution period of the marketing campaign brochure
A false professional credential claim enters public circulation, creating a latent ethical and legal liability for the firm and a reputational risk for Engineer A
The firm's marketing literature incorrectly lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer rather than a mechanical engineer, constituting a false public representation of professional credentials. This misclassification exists as a standing condition prior to any action taken by Engineer A.
Misclassification Exists in Literature (Event 1) → Public Misrepresentation Persists (Event 5)
The firm's marketing literature incorrectly lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer, and throughout the six-month period and beyond, the false credential claim remains in active circulation
Misclassification Exists in Literature (Event 1)
Had the misclassification never been introduced into the literature, no misrepresentation would exist to persist; alternatively, had correction occurred promptly upon discovery, persistence would have been prevented
Public Misrepresentation Persists (Event 5)
Absence of a correction mechanism triggered upon discovery
Failure of internal review processes to catch the error before publication
Initial erroneous classification in published marketing materials
Firm (as organization) and Marketing Director (as publishing authority)
Existence of false credential claim in active marketing literature + organizational inaction = sustained public misrepresentation
Professional engineering norms and NSPE Code provisions
Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
Engineer A in assessing whether the firm's continued use of inaccurate promotional literature constitutes an ethical violation
Applies to the firm's marketing campaign that falsely identifies Engineer A as an electrical engineer, constituting a misleading or deceptive statement in the course of business promotion that could deceive prospective clients
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section I.3 (Objective and Truthful Public Statements)
engineers have a basic ethical responsibility to take appropriate steps to ensure that such offers avoid language misleading, deceptive and untruthful language
Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's situation and the marketing director's obligations
Cited as the foundational obligation requiring engineers to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner, grounding the duty to avoid misleading and deceptive language in offers of professional services
Engineer A alerts the marketing director to the error in the promotional literature
Engineer A (EIT) in evaluating ethical obligations regarding the firm's marketing misrepresentation
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations when the firm misrepresents their engineering discipline in promotional literature, including duties of honesty, accurate representation of qualifications, and escalation when internal correction fails
Non-Imminent Violation Immediate External Reporting Non-Compulsion Engineer A Marketing Director
The discipline mislabeling, while ethically impermissible, did not create imminent public danger, justifying Engineer A's initial approach of collegial notification rather than immediate external reporting.
Non-Imminent Licensure Violation Immediate Reporting Non-Compulsion Constraint
Engineer A was not constrained to immediately report the discipline misrepresentation to an external licensing board upon discovery, as the misrepresentation did not create imminent public danger — permitting Engineer A to first pursue internal collegial resolution with the marketing director before considering external escalation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Non-Imminent Licensure Violation Immediate Reporting Non-Compulsion Constraint
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Test Discipline Marketing Campaign Engineer A
Firm's marketing campaign listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer; the discipline designation is a pertinent fact and the campaign's purpose is qualification enhancement, satisfying both elements of the misrepresentation prohibition test.
The firm was constrained to evaluate its marketing campaign against the pertinent-fact dual-element test: (1) engineering discipline is a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients assessing firm capabilities, and (2) the marketing campaign's purpose of attracting clients constitutes intent to enhance firm qualifications — both elements being present, the misrepresentation was prohibited.
At the time of marketing campaign design and throughout its distribution
Engineer A in understanding the downstream risks of the firm's misrepresentation of their engineering discipline
Establishes that engineers must practice only within their areas of competence; the misrepresentation of Engineer A as an electrical engineer could lead to assignments outside their competence area, creating professional and safety risks
Professional Competence Boundary in Solicitation — Three Foundational Principles
Firm's marketing brochure representing Engineer A's engineering discipline
Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
The Board identified three foundational principles applicable to the case: (1) engineers must perform services only in areas of their competence; (2) engineers must issue public statements objectively and truthfully; (3) engineers must avoid misleading and deceptive acts in solicitation — together establishing the ethical framework for evaluating marketing material accuracy.
The competence principle is relevant not only to the engineer's actual practice but to the representations made in solicitation materials about the engineer's disciplinary competence; misrepresenting a discipline implies competence the engineer does not have in that area.
Firm Principal Inaction-Perpetuating Firm Principal Engineer
Marketing Director Credential-Misrepresenting Marketing Director Engineer
All three principles point in the same direction: the firm must accurately represent the disciplinary competence of its engineers in marketing materials, and must correct known misrepresentations expeditiously.
Engineers, as with all professionals are admonished to perform professional services only in areas of their competence
Taken together, these three basic principles suggest that the in making offers of professional services to clients or potential clients, as well as in communications with employers, engineers have a basic ethical responsibility to take appropriate steps to ensure that such offers avoid language misleading, deceptive and untruthful language
Prospective Client Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer
{'harm_type': 'Potential deception regarding firm personnel and expertise', 'reliance': 'On firm brochures and resumes for qualification assessment'}
Prospective clients and current clients who rely on the firm's marketing brochures to assess personnel qualifications and availability, and who may be misled by inaccurate listings of departed or terminated engineers.
{'type': 'potentially_misled_by', 'target': 'Firm Principal Inaction-Perpetuating Firm Principal Engineer'}
{'type': 'potentially_misled_by', 'target': 'Marketing Director Credential-Misrepresenting Marketing Director Engineer'}
Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer
the firm's marketing brochure contains inaccurate information that could mislead and deceive a client or potential client
engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written material is as accurate and up-to-date as possible
the marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients
Clients and the public continue to receive and potentially act upon false credential information; the harm accumulates with the duration of the misrepresentation; the firm's ethical and legal exposure grows
Month 0 through at least Month 6 (ongoing)
Throughout the six-month period and beyond, the false credential claim remains in active circulation in the firm's marketing literature, constituting an ongoing harm to public trust and accurate professional representation. This is a continuous state rather than a discrete event, but it functions as a persistent outcome that compounds with each passing day.
Engineer A and the firm's marketing director in evaluating the accuracy of promotional materials
Governs the firm's obligation to accurately represent Engineer A's engineering discipline (mechanical, not electrical) in promotional and marketing literature; prohibits misrepresentation of competence or specialty area
Under the circumstances, what actions, if any, should Engineer A take?
Does Engineer A bear any personal ethical or legal exposure by remaining passively associated with marketing literature that misrepresents his engineering discipline, even after having notified the marketing director of the error?
At what point, if ever, does the firm's six-month failure to correct the misrepresentation transform what may have originated as a negligent oversight into an intentional or reckless misrepresentation triggering Engineer A's obligation to report externally to the state board?
What ethical obligations, if any, does the marketing director — who is himself a licensed engineer — independently bear with respect to the uncorrected misrepresentation, separate from Engineer A's escalation obligations?
Could a prospective client who relied on the firm's marketing literature and engaged the firm expecting electrical engineering services from Engineer A have a legitimate grievance, and does the risk of such client harm independently accelerate Engineer A's escalation obligations?
Does the Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation conflict with the Engineering Self-Policing Obligation when six months of internal inaction suggests that internal channels are ineffective, potentially leaving the public exposed to a continuing misrepresentation?
Does the Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation — which favors giving the marketing director an opportunity to self-correct — conflict with the Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered by Marketing Director's Actual Knowledge, given that the marketing director has had actual knowledge for six months and taken no action?
Does the Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test — which calibrates severity based on intent — conflict with the Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition's absolute character, creating ambiguity about whether a negligent-origin misrepresentation that persists after actual knowledge should be treated as a lesser or equivalent violation compared to an intentional one?
Does the Marketing Communication Currency Obligation — which demands that brochures remain current and accurate — conflict with the Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing BER 83-1 from BER 90-4, insofar as that precedent suggests that not all brochure inaccuracies are equally culpable, potentially allowing the firm to argue that Engineer A's discipline mislabeling is a minor, non-key-employee-level error warranting less urgent correction?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have a categorical duty to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to a firm principal after six months of inaction by the marketing director, independent of whether the escalation is likely to produce a correction?
From a consequentialist standpoint, does the risk of client harm from relying on Engineer A's misclassified credentials as an electrical engineer outweigh the organizational disruption caused by escalating the correction demand to a firm principal, and how should Engineer A weigh these competing outcomes?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's initial notification to the marketing director and subsequent six months of passive waiting reflect the professional integrity expected of an engineer-in-training, or does genuine professional integrity require more persistent and assertive self-advocacy against misrepresentation of one's own credentials?
From a deontological perspective, does the marketing director's status as a licensed professional engineer impose a heightened independent duty to correct the misrepresentation expeditiously — a duty that runs not only to the firm but to the profession and the public — such that the marketing director's six-month inaction constitutes a distinct ethical violation separate from the firm's institutional failure?
If Engineer A had escalated the discipline misrepresentation directly to a firm principal at the outset — bypassing the marketing director entirely — would that have been ethically premature under the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm, and would it have changed the likelihood of timely correction?
If the marketing director had deployed an errata sheet or interim correction notice within the first month after Engineer A's notification — rather than allowing six months to elapse — would the firm's conduct have remained an ethical violation, or would the expeditious corrective effort have satisfied the profession's marketing accuracy obligations?
If a prospective client had actually retained the firm specifically because of Engineer A's misrepresented electrical engineering credentials and subsequently suffered harm from Engineer A's lack of electrical competence, would Engineer A bear any personal ethical or legal responsibility for having failed to escalate the correction beyond the marketing director within a reasonable time?
Drawing on the intent-differentiated analysis applied in BER 83-1 and BER 90-4, if the firm's marketing director had been able to demonstrate that the discipline mislabeling of Engineer A was a purely inadvertent typographical error with no intent to mislead clients, would that finding of non-intent have relieved the firm of its ethical obligation to correct the error within a reasonable period after receiving actual notice?
Scope of Practice Boundary Engineer A Electrical Engineering Misrepresentation Client Reliance Risk
Engineer A has performed services almost exclusively in mechanical engineering and holds no electrical engineering qualifications; being listed as an electrical engineer in marketing materials creates a risk that clients will expect electrical engineering services from Engineer A.
The misrepresentation of Engineer A as an electrical engineer in firm marketing materials created a scope-of-practice boundary risk: prospective clients relying on the marketing literature might engage Engineer A for electrical engineering services that fall outside Engineer A's actual competence domain (mechanical engineering), making correction of the misrepresentation a scope-of-practice constraint imperative.
NSPE Code of Ethics II.2; Scope of Practice Constraint
Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Engineer A Marketing Director PE Inaction
The marketing director is a licensed PE whose failure to correct a known misrepresentation in firm promotional materials over six months constitutes ongoing professional misconduct, triggering Engineer A's self-policing reporting duty.
Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Constraint
Engineer A bore a foundational self-policing duty as a member of the engineering profession to ensure that the marketing director's ongoing failure to correct the discipline misrepresentation — itself an ethics violation by a PE — was not indefinitely tolerated, constraining Engineer A to escalate beyond the marketing director after the reasonable correction period expired.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Constraint
the marketing director, also an engineer
After six months of inaction by the marketing director PE
Engineer A's ethical posture shifts decisively from reporter-waiting to obligated escalator; the marketing director's window for independent resolution has closed; the matter now requires firm principal involvement
Month 6 (six months after initial report)
The passage of six months without correction of the misclassification constitutes a threshold event that, under BER case precedent, transforms Engineer A's ethical posture from patient reporter to obligated escalator. This is not a decision but a temporal outcome: the accumulation of time without action crosses a normatively significant boundary.
brochure distribution by firm (BER 90-4) overlaps two-week notice period
gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm. Nevertheless, a principal in the firm continued to distribute a brochure identifying the engineer as an employee of the firm
brochure distribution by firm (BER 90-4)
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The distinguishing obligation ensures that the strong rule from BER 83-1 is not mechanically applied to all brochure inaccuracy cases; the present case is then analyzed against the BER 90-4 framework as the closer precedent.
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
The BER 83-1 firm principal was constrained from distributing the promotional brochure listing the terminated engineer as a 'key employee' after that engineer's actual departure from the firm, regardless of the cost of reprinting or the fact that the brochure had been previously printed — with actual departure constituting a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
Where both elements are present, the violation is clear and the currency/accuracy obligation provides no defense; the firm's awareness of the termination negates any claim of inadvertent oversight.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
The absence of both pertinence and enhancement intent means the currency obligation, while acknowledged as important, does not independently generate a finding of ethical violation — though the Board signals it would in future cases with prolonged inaction after notice.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.87
Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation for Inadvertent Violations
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.88
Engineer A has fulfilled the first step (alerting the marketing director); the six-month inaction now triggers an obligation to escalate to the firm principal as the next available internal channel before any external reporting
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.88
Collegial engagement was properly initiated; its failure after six months activates the next stage of the escalation sequence
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
Internal escalation is the appropriate next step; external reporting becomes obligatory only if the principal also fails to act
Defeasibility edge from concreteexpression
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.85
After Engineer A notified the marketing director of the discipline misrepresentation and six months passed without correction, the Board held that Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to escalate the matter to a firm principal — the initial notification to the marketing director, while appropriate, did not fully discharge Engineer A's ethical duty.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
Self-policing does not require immediate external reporting; it requires persistent internal escalation followed by external reporting if internal channels fail
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
Six months of inaction following an explicit promise of correction by the marketing director constituted a breach of the reasonable-period threshold, constraining Engineer A to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to firm principals rather than continuing to await voluntary correction.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
The discipline misrepresentation prohibition establishes the nature of the violation; the expeditious correction obligation establishes the remedy; together they require the firm to both acknowledge the violation and take prompt corrective action.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
Discipline accuracy is a non-negotiable element of qualification representation; the existence of other electrical engineers in the firm does not cure the misrepresentation of Engineer A's discipline
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The Board does not find a definitive violation at the six-month mark but signals that continued inaction 'could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct,' indicating that the actual-knowledge trigger has been activated and the negligent-oversight defense is no longer available.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
The negligent-oversight characterization is temporally bounded: it applies to the period before actual notice, but once the marketing director received Engineer A's notification, the defense ceased to be available and the firm's continued inaction became an independent ethical concern.
The Board does not fully resolve the tension — it stops short of finding a definitive violation at six months — but clearly signals that the negligent-oversight defense has a temporal limit and that actual knowledge activates a new and more demanding ethical standard.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.86
Even if the original listing was inadvertent, the six-month failure to correct after explicit notification may satisfy the intent element — continued distribution of known-inaccurate materials with enhancement purpose constitutes purposeful misrepresentation
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Prolonged inaction after notification converts an initially inadvertent error into a purposeful misrepresentation; the dual-element test is satisfied at the point where correction is knowingly withheld
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.84
The BER 90-4 firm principal's conduct was constrained by the pertinent-fact dual-element test: continued listing of the departing hydrology engineer during the two-week notice period did not satisfy either element — the engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee,' hydrology was not a significant portion of firm services, and there was no apparent intent to enhance firm qualifications — placing the conduct at the non-violation end of the intent-differentiated spectrum while still triggering the obligation to expeditiously correct.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.72
Administrative convenience does not excuse prolonged failure to correct a known misrepresentation; the six-month delay is unreasonable
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
No competing priority justifies six months of inaction after an explicit correction promise; the obligation to follow through is clear
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.87
The promise transformed a passive omission into an active undertaking; Engineer A's reasonable reliance on the promise — and the continued harm from ongoing misrepresentation — makes the non-performance an independent ethical failure
departing engineer gives two weeks notice (BER 90-4) before departing engineer leaves firm
an engineer...gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm. Nevertheless, a principal in the firm continued to distribute a brochure identifying the engineer as an employee
departing engineer gives two weeks notice (BER 90-4)
engineer distributes brochure listing terminated engineer (BER 83-1) after terminated engineer leaves firm
since the engineer distributed the brochure after the terminated engineer left the firm, the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation
engineer distributes brochure listing terminated engineer (BER 83-1)
firm's marketing campaign launch before Engineer A discovers the error
marketing director's promise to correct error meets six-month period of inaction
the marketing director indicates that the error will be corrected. However, after a period of six months, the error is not corrected.
marketing director's promise to correct error
notification of error to marketing director before ethical obligation to act expeditiously
the firm's marketing director has been informed by the engineer in question that the firm's marketing brochure contains inaccurate information...the marketing director has an ethical obligation to take expeditious action to correct the error.
notification of error to marketing director
invokedby: BER 90-4 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Discipline-Misrepresented EIT Staff Engineer
invokedby: BER 83-1 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
invokedby: Firm Principal Inaction-Perpetuating Firm Principal Engineer
invokedby: Marketing Director Credential-Misrepresenting Marketing Director Engineer
In BER Case 90-4, the Board found neither element clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a key employee (pertinence uncertain) and the firm's inclusion appeared to be an oversight without enhancement intent, so no
Engineer A, as a member of the engineering profession, bore a foundational self-policing duty to come forward with information about the ongoing discipline misrepresentation in firm promotional materials and to pursue correction through all
After Engineer A notified the marketing director of the discipline misrepresentation and six months passed without correction, the Board held that Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to escalate the matter to a firm principal — the ini
After six months of inaction by the marketing director, Engineer A's next ethical step is to escalate the matter internally to the firm principal before considering external reporting; the graduated escalation principle requires exhausting
Engineer A appropriately engaged the marketing director collegially before any external escalation; however, after six months of inaction, the collegial engagement phase has been exhausted and the obligation to escalate further — first to t
The firm's marketing campaign literature listed Engineer A — a mechanical engineering EIT — as an electrical engineer, directly misrepresenting the discipline-specific qualification of a listed employee to prospective clients who rely on su
Engineer A appropriately fulfilled the collegial pre-reporting engagement obligation by first approaching the marketing director directly about the discipline misrepresentation before any external escalation; this collegial step was correct
The firm's marketing literature made a false representation about Engineer A's engineering discipline, violating the obligation to make only truthful and accurate representations of personnel qualifications when seeking professional engagem
The Board grounded the marketing director's and firm's obligations in the engineer's fundamental duty to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner, extending this duty specifically to solicitation materials such as marketi
The firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A — an EIT with a mechanical engineering degree — as an electrical engineer, constituting a discipline-specific misrepresentation that could mislead prospective clients about the actual technica
The discipline misrepresentation satisfies the 'pertinent fact' element because an engineer's discipline is clearly and decisively relevant to a client's selection decision; the 'intent and purpose' element requires assessment of whether th
The Board characterized the firm's initial failure to correct the discipline misrepresentation as a negligent oversight rather than an intentional violation, but explicitly held that continued inaction after the marketing director received
In BER Case 83-1, the Board found both elements satisfied: the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact) and the firm distributed the brochure with awareness of the termination to enhance qualifications (inten
The firm's listing of Engineer A as an 'electrical engineer' when Engineer A holds a mechanical engineering degree and practices exclusively in mechanical engineering constitutes a misrepresentation of professional qualifications that the m
In BER Case 83-1, the firm's continued distribution of a brochure highlighting the terminated engineer as a 'key employee' — both during the notice period and after departure — without any corrective disclosure to prospective clients, const
The Board held that the marketing director, upon being notified by Engineer A of the discipline misrepresentation in the firm's brochure, had an ethical obligation to maintain accurate marketing materials and take expeditious corrective act
Once the marketing director received actual notice from Engineer A that the brochure misrepresented Engineer A's engineering discipline, the marketing director's ethical obligation to take expeditious corrective action was triggered — and s
The marketing director's explicit promise to Engineer A that the discipline error would be corrected created a specific relational obligation; the six-month failure to act on that promise constitutes an independent ethical violation beyond
Upon being alerted by Engineer A to the discipline misrepresentation, the marketing director — as the responsible party for promotional materials — was obligated to take affirmative corrective action by auditing the marketing literature and
By listing Engineer A under the 'electrical engineer' designation without regard to Engineer A's actual mechanical engineering degree and practice, the firm failed to use engineering discipline designations in a way that accurately represen
The BER 83-1 firm principal violated the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because both elements of the dual-element test were satisfied: (1) the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact), and (2) th
The BER 83-1 firm principal was obligated to cease distributing the promotional brochure listing the terminated engineer as a 'key employee' after that engineer actually departed the firm, as continued distribution after actual departure co
Engineer A was obligated to not permit the misrepresentation of their engineering discipline to continue unchallenged, and having reported it once, was further obligated to take additional corrective steps after six months of inaction to en
Engineer A, having reported the discipline misrepresentation and received a promise of correction that went unfulfilled for six months, was obligated to escalate the matter beyond the initial report to prevent continued acquiescence in the
Engineer A was obligated to report the discipline misrepresentation in the firm's marketing brochure to the responsible party (marketing director) as an initial step in the internal escalation process, and the Board found that Engineer A ap
After six months of inaction by the marketing director following Engineer A's initial report, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to the firm principal or next level of firm authority, exhausting internal c
After notifying the marketing director of the discipline misrepresentation and observing no corrective action for six months, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the matter to a principal of the firm before considering any external reporti
The firm was obligated to ensure that its marketing brochure accurately identified Engineer A's engineering discipline as mechanical engineering rather than electrical engineering, because clients selecting engineering services rely materia
The firm was obligated to evaluate its marketing campaign materials against the pertinent-fact dual-element misrepresentation test before distribution; the discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A satisfies both elements — engineering dis
Upon being made aware (through Engineer A's report to the marketing director) that its promotional materials misrepresented Engineer A's engineering discipline, the firm was obligated to promptly audit and correct those materials to prevent
The firm was obligated to ensure that its marketing campaign materials were truthful and non-deceptive; listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer when Engineer A holds a mechanical engineering degree and practices exclusively in mechanic
The firm was obligated to refrain from listing Engineer A — a mechanical engineering EIT — as an electrical engineer in its marketing campaign literature, because this discipline substitution constitutes a pertinent-fact misrepresentation t
Although the initial discipline misrepresentation in the firm's brochure arose from a negligent oversight rather than intentional deception, the firm was obligated to recognize that continued inaction after receiving actual knowledge of the
The marketing director, as the engineer responsible for promotional materials, was obligated to maintain ongoing accuracy of those materials, including promptly correcting the discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A once it was identifie
Upon being informed by Engineer A that the firm's marketing brochure incorrectly listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer rather than a mechanical engineer, the marketing director was obligated to take expeditious corrective action — suc
The marketing director was obligated to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — such as an errata sheet inserted into existing brochures, a cover letter, or strike-outs — to correct the discipline misrepresentation, rather than tr
The marketing director, upon explicitly promising Engineer A that the discipline misrepresentation would be corrected, was obligated to follow through on that promise within a reasonable time and to take affirmative steps to implement the c
The BER 90-4 firm principal did not violate the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because neither element of the dual-element test was clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinence u
Even though the BER 90-4 firm's continued listing of the departing engineer did not constitute an ethical violation under the totality of circumstances, the firm was nonetheless obligated to take expeditious steps to correct any false impre
The BER 90-4 firm principal was obligated to assess whether continued listing of the departing hydrology engineer in firm brochures and resumes constituted a pertinent-fact misrepresentation by evaluating the totality of circumstances — inc
six-month period of inaction before recommended escalation to firm principal
after a period of six months during which the error was not corrected, Engineer A should raise the issue with a principal in the firm.
recommended escalation to firm principal
terminated engineer given notice of termination (BER 83-1) before engineer distributes brochure listing terminated engineer
The engineer had distributed the brochure while the terminated engineer was still employed but had been given notice of the termination.
terminated engineer given notice of termination (BER 83-1)
engineer distributes brochure listing terminated engineer
BER 90-4 Intent-Differentiated Severity Calibration Departing Hydrology Engineer Routine Listing
BER 90-4 precedent: firm principal continued listing departing hydrology engineer in brochure and resume during notice period without highlighting as key employee or intent to enhance qualifications
In finding it was not unethical for the principal to continue to represent the engineer as an employee of the firm under the circumstances described, we distinguished BER Case 90-4 from BER Case 83-1.
Two-week notice period before departing engineer's actual departure
the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution BER 83-1 Firm Principal Prohibition
BER 83-1 precedent: firm principal continued distributing brochure listing terminated engineer as 'key employee' after actual departure, constituting clear misrepresentation of pertinent fact
Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Prohibition Constraint
since the engineer distributed the brochure after the terminated engineer left the firm, the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
From the terminated engineer's actual departure from the firm onward
The Board noted that this could easily mislead potential clients into believing that the terminated engineer, highlighted as a 'key employee', would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
Reasonable Period Inaction Escalation Trigger Six Months Marketing Director Promise Unfulfilled
Marketing director promised correction of Engineer A's discipline mislabeling but took no action for six months, making further passive waiting ethically impermissible.
Reasonable Period Inaction Escalation Trigger Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 90-4; Credential Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Constraint
Six-month period following marketing director's promise of correction
BER 83-1 vs BER 90-4 Intent-Differentiated Assessment
Active during Board's comparative case-by-case ethical analysis
we believe that the best method of determining whether the line is violated is by reviewing each individual matter on a case-by-case basis
Intent-Differentiated Marketing Misrepresentation Assessment State
Ethical distinction between intentional qualification-enhancing misrepresentation (BER 83-1) and inadvertent oversight (BER 90-4) in firm promotional materials
Board's issuance of ethical findings in each respective case
While the Board has in the past found that unethical conduct occurred in the absence of intentional actions, the Board did not consider the facts of BER Case 90-4 to be of a nature to make such a finding
the Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent
Board's need to distinguish two factually similar cases with different ethical outcomes based on intent and materiality
BER 90-4 Departing Hydrology Engineer Routine Listing Oversight
From engineer's two-week notice through Board's ethical review
Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
Principal's continued listing of departing hydrology engineer in firm brochure and resume during two-week notice period
Board finding that conduct was not unethical under the specific facts (no 'key employee' highlighting, not sole expertise holder, not significant practice area)
the departing engineer was not the only engineer in the firm who possessed such expertise
Engineer gave two weeks notice; principal continued distributing brochure and resume listing engineer as firm employee
Credential Misrepresentation by Firm — Engineer A Listed as Electrical Engineer
From initiation of marketing campaign; persisting for at least six months after Engineer A's notification
Credential Misrepresentation by Firm State
Firm's ongoing publication of marketing literature misrepresenting Engineer A's engineering discipline
Not yet terminated — error persists after six months
Firm publishes marketing literature listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer; Engineer A notifies marketing director; marketing director acknowledges error but fails to correct it
Current Case Marketing Brochure Discipline Mislabeling Uncorrected
From Engineer A's notification to marketing director through the six-month period of inaction
the firm's marketing director has been informed by the engineer in question that the firm's marketing brochure contains inaccurate information that could mislead and deceive a client or potential client
Acknowledged Error Uncorrected After Reasonable Period State
Firm marketing brochure containing inaccurate engineering discipline information for Engineer A, known to marketing director (PE) for six months without correction
Not yet terminated — ongoing state requiring escalation to firm principal
after a period of six months during which the error was not corrected, Engineer A should raise the issue with a principal in the firm
continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct
Engineer A informed marketing director that brochure contains inaccurate information about engineer's specialization
Firm Marketing Literature Discipline Mislabeling of Engineer A
From publication of the marketing campaign through the present (at least six months)
Engineering Discipline Mislabeling in Firm Marketing State
Firm's promotional literature listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer
Not yet terminated — error remains uncorrected after six months
Firm begins marketing campaign listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer despite Engineer A's mechanical engineering background
Marketing Director PE Expeditious Correction Obligation
From notification by Engineer A through six months of inaction
Negligent Marketing Oversight Without Corrective Action State
Marketing director's (PE) failure to take expeditious corrective action after being notified of brochure inaccuracy over six-month period
Corrective action (errata sheet, cover letter, reprint) or escalation by Engineer A to firm principal
Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior
the marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created
this could take the form of a simple and inexpensive errata sheet inserted into the brochure
Engineer A's notification to marketing director of inaccurate discipline information in firm brochure
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition Invoked Against Firm
Firm interest in presenting broad disciplinary coverage
The firm's marketing literature misrepresented Engineer A's engineering discipline — substituting 'electrical' for 'mechanical' — creating a false impression of the firm's electrical engineering personnel depth and misleading prospective clients about Engineer A's actual technical expertise
The discipline-specific nature of the misrepresentation is particularly significant because engineering disciplines are not interchangeable; a client seeking electrical engineering services who selects the firm based on Engineer A's listing as an electrical engineer would be materially misled
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition
There are other electrical engineers in the firm.
Firm Competence-Discipline Solicitation Accuracy Obligation — Engineer A Brochure
The firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A — an EIT with a mechanical engineering degree who practices exclusively in mechanical engineering — as an electrical engineer, misrepresenting the discipline-specific competence available to prospective clients.
Competence-Discipline Solicitation Accuracy Obligation
The firm was obligated to ensure that its marketing brochure accurately identified Engineer A's engineering discipline as mechanical engineering rather than electrical engineering, because clients selecting engineering services rely materially on discipline-specific competence representations, and the substitution of one discipline for another constitutes both a competence misrepresentation and a deceptive solicitation act.
From the initial distribution of the brochure containing the misrepresentation through the period of inaction
where the engineer is seeking professional engagements, the engineer must always take all reasonable steps to avoid misleading and deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment
Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — BER 83-1 Both Elements Satisfied
In BER Case 83-1, the firm principal continued to distribute a brochure listing a terminated 'key employee' both during the notice period and after actual departure, satisfying both the pertinence and intent elements of the misrepresentation test.
Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation
The BER 83-1 firm principal violated the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because both elements of the dual-element test were satisfied: (1) the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact), and (2) the continued distribution of the brochure after actual departure demonstrated intent to enhance firm qualifications beyond what was accurate.
The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
During distribution of the brochure after the terminated engineer's departure
The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure
it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
Marketing Director Errata Sheet Mechanism Utilization Obligation
The firm's brochure listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer. The Board noted that correction could be achieved through simple, inexpensive means such as an errata sheet, making the logistical burden minimal.
Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Utilization Obligation
The marketing director was obligated to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — such as an errata sheet inserted into existing brochures, a cover letter, or strike-outs — to correct the discipline misrepresentation, rather than treating the logistical difficulty of reprinting as a justification for continued inaction.
errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies
Within a reasonable period after receiving actual notice of the discipline error from Engineer A
while we recognize basic logistical problems involved in distributing, correcting and reprinting brochures and other promotional material
BER 83-1 Post-Termination Key Employee Brochure Misrepresentation
From notice of termination through continued post-departure distribution of brochure
Principal engineer's continued distribution of brochure listing terminated engineer as 'key employee' after departure
Ethics Board finding of violation (BER Case 83-1)
continued to use a previously printed brochure with the terminated engineer's name in it well after the terminated engineer left the firm
Principal engineer distributed brochure listing terminated engineer as 'key employee' while termination was pending and after departure
BER 90-4 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
{'intent': 'Oversight without malice — no intent to enhance qualifications', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 90-4', 'finding': 'Not unethical under the specific facts, but cautioned to correct promptly'}
In BER Case 90-4, this principal continued to list a departing engineer in firm brochures and resumes, but without intent to misrepresent or highlight the engineer as a key resource. The Board found this an oversight without malice, though still cautioned firms to correct inaccuracies expeditiously.
{'type': 'listed', 'target': 'BER 90-4 Departing Hydrology Engineer Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer'}
Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
In finding it was not unethical for the principal to continue to represent the engineer as an employee of the firm under the circumstances described
Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure Applied to BER 83-1 Key Employee Termination
Continued distribution of brochure listing terminated key employee after departure from firm
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
In BER Case 83-1, the firm's continued distribution of a brochure highlighting the terminated engineer as a 'key employee' — both during the notice period and after departure — without any corrective disclosure to prospective clients, constituted a violation of the obligation to disclose material changes in personnel status during active negotiation.
The key-employee highlighting made the personnel status change a pertinent fact that prospective clients would rely upon; the firm's failure to provide corrective disclosure during active negotiation transformed the continued distribution into an active misrepresentation.
BER 83-1 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
The pertinence of the key-employee designation and the firm's awareness of the termination satisfied both elements of the dual-element test, making the currency disclosure obligation fully operative and the violation clear.
The Board noted that this could easily mislead potential clients into believing that the terminated engineer, highlighted as a 'key employee', would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects
The engineer had distributed the brochure while the terminated engineer was still employed but had been given notice of the termination
The engineer was aware of the impending termination of the terminated engineer
Engineer A Qualifications Non-Falsification Non-Misrepresentation Discipline Correction
Engineer A correctly identified and reported the discipline misrepresentation, satisfying the initial reporting duty; however, after six months of inaction, Engineer A bears a continuing obligation to pursue correction through escalation.
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to not permit the misrepresentation of their engineering discipline to continue unchallenged, and having reported it once, was further obligated to take additional corrective steps after six months of inaction to ensure the misrepresentation was remedied.
From discovery of the misrepresentation through the six-month period and beyond
Engineer A Timely Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Six Month Inaction
Six months elapsed after Engineer A's initial report to the marketing director without correction; this period exceeds a reasonable time for correction, triggering the escalation obligation.
Timely Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Obligation
Engineer A, having reported the discipline misrepresentation and received a promise of correction that went unfulfilled for six months, was obligated to escalate the matter beyond the initial report to prevent continued acquiescence in the ongoing misrepresentation.
Upon expiration of a reasonable correction period following the marketing director's promise
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked Against Firm
Firm business development and marketing interests
The firm's marketing literature made a false representation about Engineer A's engineering discipline, violating the obligation to make only truthful and accurate representations of personnel qualifications when seeking professional engagements
Honesty in professional representations extends to all marketing communications, not merely direct statements to clients; discipline misrepresentation in a brochure is a false assurance about the nature of expertise available
Business development interests cannot override the fundamental obligation of honesty; accurate discipline representation is required
Marketing Communication Currency Obligation Applied to Present Case
Firm brochure listing Engineer A as electrical engineer when degree is in mechanical engineering
Logistical constraints of reprinting marketing materials
The Board held that the marketing director, upon being notified by Engineer A of the discipline misrepresentation in the firm's brochure, had an ethical obligation to maintain accurate marketing materials and take expeditious corrective action, including through low-cost measures such as errata sheets.
The currency and accuracy obligation is not discharged by initial accuracy at publication; it requires ongoing maintenance and, upon actual notice of inaccuracy, expeditious corrective action proportionate to the nature of the error.
the marketing director has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created.
The Board acknowledged logistical realities but held that low-cost corrective measures (errata sheets, cover letters) are available and must be employed; logistical difficulty does not excuse inaction after actual notice.
the marketing director has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created
Marketing Director Acknowledged-But-Uncorrected Error After Six Months
From the moment the marketing director acknowledged the error and committed to correction through the present (six months elapsed)
Marketing director's acknowledged commitment to correct Engineer A's discipline mislabeling, unfulfilled after six months
Marketing director acknowledges the error and commits to correction; six months pass without correction
Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation Invoked Against Firm
Firm marketing campaign literature listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer
The firm's marketing campaign literature listed Engineer A — a mechanical engineering EIT — as an electrical engineer, directly misrepresenting the discipline-specific qualification of a listed employee to prospective clients who rely on such materials to assess firm capabilities
In this context, the obligation requires the firm to ensure that the discipline label assigned to each listed engineer in promotional materials accurately reflects that engineer's actual degree and primary practice area; listing a mechanical EIT as electrical is a direct violation regardless of whether other electrical engineers exist in the firm
Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation
Marketing interests do not override the obligation to accurately represent personnel qualifications; accuracy is non-negotiable
Objective and Truthful Public Statement Obligation in Solicitation Context
Firm promotional brochure as a public statement of qualifications directed at prospective clients
The Board grounded the marketing director's and firm's obligations in the engineer's fundamental duty to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner, extending this duty specifically to solicitation materials such as marketing brochures that represent personnel qualifications to prospective clients.
The honesty obligation in professional representations extends to all public-facing solicitation materials, not merely to direct client communications; a marketing brochure is a public statement subject to the same truthfulness requirements as any other professional representation.
The honesty obligation establishes the substantive standard (truthfulness); the currency obligation establishes the procedural mechanism (ongoing maintenance and correction); both are required and neither substitutes for the other.
the engineer has a fundamental obligation to issue public statements in a objective and truthful manner
Professional Title Integrity and Anti-Misrepresentation Obligation Invoked Against Firm
Firm marketing and business development interests
The firm's listing of Engineer A as an 'electrical engineer' when Engineer A holds a mechanical engineering degree and practices exclusively in mechanical engineering constitutes a misrepresentation of professional qualifications that the marketing director — as a licensed engineer — was obligated to challenge and correct
Licensed engineers within the firm bear responsibility for ensuring that engineering designations in firm materials are accurate; the marketing director's failure to correct the error after six months is a violation of this obligation
Professional Title Integrity and Anti-Misrepresentation Obligation
Title and qualification integrity is non-negotiable; business interests do not justify sustained misrepresentation
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use Invoked Against Firm
Firm interest in presenting broad disciplinary coverage in marketing materials
By listing Engineer A under the 'electrical engineer' designation without regard to Engineer A's actual mechanical engineering degree and practice, the firm failed to use engineering discipline designations in a way that accurately represents the holder's actual qualifications to clients and the public
Discipline designation in marketing materials is a form of qualification representation; transparency requires that such designations reflect actual educational background and primary practice area
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
Transparency obligation prevails; the firm must accurately represent each engineer's discipline even if this reveals a gap in electrical coverage
{'intent': 'Intentional misrepresentation to enhance firm qualifications', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 83-1', 'finding': 'Ethical violation — clear misrepresentation of pertinent fact'}
In BER Case 83-1, this principal engineer intentionally distributed a brochure listing a terminated 'key employee' both during the notice period and after departure, with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications — found to be a clear ethical violation.
{'type': 'misrepresented', 'target': 'BER 83-1 Terminated Engineer Terminated Staff Engineer Subject to Credential Misuse'}
the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure
the engineer distributed the brochure after the terminated engineer left the firm, the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing BER 83-1 from BER 90-4
Ethical analysis of present case involving Engineer A's discipline misrepresentation
The Board carefully distinguished BER Case 83-1 (intentional distribution of brochure listing terminated key employee) from BER Case 90-4 (inadvertent listing of departing non-key engineer) by identifying the material factual differences — key employee highlighting, pertinence of the fact, and enhancement intent — that altered the ethical outcome.
The distinguishing analysis demonstrates that the same general category of conduct (listing inaccurate personnel information in brochures) can yield different ethical outcomes depending on the presence or absence of key elements — pertinence, intent, and degree of highlighting — requiring careful case-by-case analysis rather than categorical rules.
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
However, in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm
In finding it was not unethical for the principal to continue to represent the engineer as an employee of the firm under the circumstances described, we distinguished BER Case 90-4 from BER Case 83-1
The Board noted that in BER Case 83-1, the terminated engineer was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee'
Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked For Engineer A
Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
Engineer A, as a licensed EIT within the firm, bears a professional obligation to come forward with information about the ongoing discipline misrepresentation and to ensure it is corrected — not merely to alert the marketing director once and then passively accept six months of inaction
The self-policing obligation requires Engineer A to persist in seeking correction; having alerted the marketing director and received a promise that was not kept, Engineer A must now escalate to the firm principal and, if necessary, to external authorities
Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Discipline Marketing Campaign
The firm's marketing literature listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer when Engineer A is a mechanical engineer; this misrepresentation is pertinent (discipline affects client selection) and enhances the firm's apparent qualifications in electrical engineering.
The firm was obligated to evaluate its marketing campaign materials against the pertinent-fact dual-element misrepresentation test before distribution; the discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A satisfies both elements — engineering discipline is pertinent to client selection decisions, and listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer enhances the apparent electrical engineering capacity of the firm — constituting a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
At the time of preparing and distributing the marketing campaign materials
Marketing Director Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy Maintenance Engineer A Discipline
The marketing director was alerted to the discipline error but allowed the inaccurate materials to remain in circulation for at least six months without correction.
Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Obligation
The marketing director, as the engineer responsible for promotional materials, was obligated to maintain ongoing accuracy of those materials, including promptly correcting the discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A once it was identified, and to ensure the materials did not remain inaccurate for an extended period.
the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature
Continuously from the date Engineer A reported the error
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 83-1
Continued distribution of brochure listing terminated key employee after departure
In BER Case 83-1, the Board found both elements satisfied: the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact) and the firm distributed the brochure with awareness of the termination to enhance qualifications (intent and purpose), constituting a clear ethical violation.
The dual-element test requires both pertinence of the misrepresented fact and enhancement intent; BER 83-1 is the paradigm case where both elements are clearly present, making it the benchmark against which less clear cases are distinguished.
The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work' by including the terminated engineer's name in the promotional brochure after the terminated engineer left the firm
BER 90-4 Firm Marketing Currency Correction Obligation Despite Non-Violation Finding
In BER Case 90-4, the Board found no ethical violation but nonetheless admonished that firms should take expeditious corrective action when they have reason to believe marketing materials may mislead, and that failure to do so risks breaching ethical behavior.
BER 90-4 Firm Principal and Marketing Personnel
Expeditious Marketing Material Error Correction Upon Actual Knowledge Obligation
Even though the BER 90-4 firm's continued listing of the departing engineer did not constitute an ethical violation under the totality of circumstances, the firm was nonetheless obligated to take expeditious steps to correct any false impressions in marketing materials once it had reason to believe a misunderstanding might occur, employing errata sheets, cover letters, or reprints as appropriate.
the Board noted that it was in no way condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others
Upon the firm having reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur regarding the departing engineer's status
Engineer A Initial Collegial Notification Obligation — Met
Engineer A discovered that the firm's marketing brochure listed them as an electrical engineer rather than a mechanical engineer and reported this to the marketing director. The Board characterized this as an appropriate first step.
Discipline-Specific Misrepresentation Internal Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to report the discipline misrepresentation in the firm's marketing brochure to the responsible party (marketing director) as an initial step in the internal escalation process, and the Board found that Engineer A appropriately fulfilled this initial obligation by alerting the marketing director to the error.
Upon discovering the discipline misrepresentation in the firm's marketing brochure
Engineer A Obligation to Escalate After Failed Initial Notification
From six months after initial notification onward
Engineer A's position after initial notification to marketing director failed to produce correction over six months
Engineer A escalates to firm leadership, demands written correction, or disassociates
Six months elapse without correction following marketing director's acknowledgment
Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered by Marketing Director's Actual Knowledge
Discipline misrepresentation of Engineer A in firm promotional brochure
Negligent Oversight Non-Excuse for Prolonged Inaction After Actual Knowledge
Once the marketing director received actual notice from Engineer A that the brochure misrepresented Engineer A's engineering discipline, the marketing director's ethical obligation to take expeditious corrective action was triggered — and six months of inaction after that notice independently raised questions of ethical violation.
The actual-knowledge trigger transforms the ethical analysis: what began as a potentially inadvertent error becomes an ongoing misrepresentation that the firm is now knowingly allowing to persist, shifting the ethical characterization from oversight to potential violation.
Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
Under the reasoning in BER Case 90-4, the marketing director has an ethical obligation to take expeditious action to correct the error
Firm Firm Brochure Engineering Title Audit Correction Engineer A Discipline
The firm's marketing campaign listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer when Engineer A holds a mechanical engineering degree and practices exclusively in mechanical engineering; the error was reported but not corrected for six months.
Firm Brochure Engineering Title Audit and Correction Obligation
Upon being made aware (through Engineer A's report to the marketing director) that its promotional materials misrepresented Engineer A's engineering discipline, the firm was obligated to promptly audit and correct those materials to prevent prospective clients from being misled.
Upon Engineer A's notification to the marketing director and continuously thereafter
Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — BER 90-4 Neither Element Clearly Satisfied
In BER Case 90-4, the departing hydrology engineer was not highlighted as a key employee, was not the sole hydrology expert, and hydrology was not a significant practice area, so neither the pertinence nor the intent element was clearly met.
The BER 90-4 firm principal did not violate the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because neither element of the dual-element test was clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinence uncertain), and the firm's actions appeared to be an oversight without malice or intent to enhance qualifications.
in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm
During the two-week notice period and shortly after departure
the Board was reluctant to conclude that the actions of the firm and the engineer in including the name of the departing engineer in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrated an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
Negligent Oversight Defense Temporally Bounded by Actual Knowledge in Present Case
Six months of inaction after Engineer A's notification of discipline misrepresentation
The Board characterized the firm's initial failure to correct the discipline misrepresentation as a negligent oversight rather than an intentional violation, but explicitly held that continued inaction after the marketing director received actual notice from Engineer A could no longer be characterized as mere oversight and independently raised ethical concerns.
While there is no indication that what has occurred under these facts is anything other than an negligent oversight, continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test Applied to Firm
Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
The discipline misrepresentation satisfies the 'pertinent fact' element because an engineer's discipline is clearly and decisively relevant to a client's selection decision; the 'intent and purpose' element requires assessment of whether the firm knowingly listed Engineer A as electrical to enhance its apparent electrical engineering capacity
the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected.
Promised Correction Follow-Through Obligation Invoked Against Marketing Director
Competing administrative priorities within the firm
The marketing director's explicit promise to Engineer A that the discipline error would be corrected created a specific relational obligation; the six-month failure to act on that promise constitutes an independent ethical violation beyond the original misrepresentation
Promised Correction Follow-Through Obligation
the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected. However, after a period of six months, the error is not corrected.
Engineer A Discipline-Specific Misrepresentation Internal Escalation Firm Principal
Engineer A reported the error to the marketing director who promised correction but took no action for six months; the next ethical step is internal escalation to the firm principal.
After six months of inaction by the marketing director following Engineer A's initial report, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to the firm principal or next level of firm authority, exhausting internal channels before considering external reporting to the state licensing board.
After the six-month period of marketing director inaction
Engineer A Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Discipline Misrepresentation
Engineer A correctly initiated the self-policing process by reporting to the marketing director; the six-month inaction period now requires Engineer A to continue fulfilling this foundational duty through further escalation.
Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Obligation
Engineer A, as a member of the engineering profession, bore a foundational self-policing duty to come forward with information about the ongoing discipline misrepresentation in firm promotional materials and to pursue correction through all available channels, including escalation to the firm principal and, if necessary, external reporting.
From discovery of the misrepresentation onward, continuously
Engineer A Six-Month Inaction Firm Principal Escalation Obligation
Engineer A reported the discipline misrepresentation (listed as electrical rather than mechanical engineer) to the marketing director. Six months passed without correction. The Board held that Engineer A's next step should be escalation to a firm principal.
Staff Engineer Six-Month Inaction Firm Principal Escalation Obligation
After notifying the marketing director of the discipline misrepresentation and observing no corrective action for six months, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the matter to a principal of the firm before considering any external reporting, so that the firm had a full internal opportunity to remedy the misrepresentation.
we believe that after a period of six months during which the error was not corrected, Engineer A should raise the issue with a principal in the firm
After approximately six months of inaction by the marketing director following Engineer A's initial notification
While we believe Engineer A has taken an appropriate step in alerting the marketing director to the error in the brochure, we believe that after a period of six months during which the error was not corrected, Engineer A should raise the issue with a principal in the firm
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition Applied to Engineer A's Brochure Listing
Firm promotional brochure listing Engineer A's engineering discipline
The firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A — an EIT with a mechanical engineering degree — as an electrical engineer, constituting a discipline-specific misrepresentation that could mislead prospective clients about the actual technical expertise available to them from Engineer A.
The discipline misrepresentation prohibition applies not only to licensure status misrepresentation but to the specific engineering discipline in which a listed engineer holds their degree and has performed services — here, listing a mechanical engineer as an electrical engineer is the paradigm case of discipline-specific misrepresentation.
the marketing director has been informed by the engineer in question that the firm's marketing brochure contains inaccurate information
Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation Invoked Against Marketing Director
Operational workload and administrative priorities
Upon being alerted by Engineer A to the discipline misrepresentation, the marketing director — as the responsible party for promotional materials — was obligated to take affirmative corrective action by auditing the marketing literature and revising the misrepresented discipline label; six months of inaction constitutes a failure of this obligation
The marketing director's role as both a licensed engineer and the person responsible for promotional materials creates a heightened obligation; being alerted to the error and promising correction without following through compounds the violation
Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
Firm Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition Engineer A Marketing Campaign
The firm launched a marketing campaign and its promotional literature listed Engineer A under the wrong engineering discipline (electrical instead of mechanical), despite there being actual electrical engineers in the firm.
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
The firm was obligated to refrain from listing Engineer A — a mechanical engineering EIT — as an electrical engineer in its marketing campaign literature, because this discipline substitution constitutes a pertinent-fact misrepresentation that could mislead prospective clients about the firm's electrical engineering personnel and capabilities.
Firm Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Discipline Misrepresentation Marketing Campaign
The firm's marketing campaign contained a discipline misrepresentation that, regardless of whether it was initially inadvertent, remained uncorrected for at least six months after being reported, making the continued distribution of the materials a knowing deception.
Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
The firm was obligated to ensure that its marketing campaign materials were truthful and non-deceptive; listing Engineer A as an electrical engineer when Engineer A holds a mechanical engineering degree and practices exclusively in mechanical engineering violates this obligation by creating a false impression of the firm's electrical engineering personnel.
From the initial distribution of the marketing materials through the six-month period of inaction
Marketing Director Expeditious Discipline Error Correction Obligation
The firm's marketing brochure listed Engineer A (a mechanical engineering EIT) as an electrical engineer. Engineer A notified the marketing director of this error. Six months passed without correction.
Upon being informed by Engineer A that the firm's marketing brochure incorrectly listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer rather than a mechanical engineer, the marketing director was obligated to take expeditious corrective action — such as issuing an errata sheet, cover letter, or reprint — within a reasonable period of time, and not to allow six months to pass without correction.
From the moment the marketing director received actual notice from Engineer A of the discipline misrepresentation
we believe the marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created
Staff Engineer Internal Escalation Obligation After Six Months of Marketing Director Inaction
Discipline misrepresentation in firm brochure; marketing director's six months of inaction
At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
The escalation obligation is triggered by the combination of: (1) initial appropriate notification, (2) a reasonable waiting period (here, six months), and (3) continued inaction by the notified party; the obligation is to escalate within the firm hierarchy, not to report externally at this stage.
Staff Engineer Internal Escalation Obligation After Supervisor Inaction on Known Misrepresentation
The Board frames the escalation as an ethical obligation rather than a discretionary option, indicating that Engineer A's professional duties to clients and the profession override any personal reluctance to escalate within the firm hierarchy.
while we believe Engineer A has taken an appropriate step in alerting the marketing director to the error in the brochure
BER 83-1 Firm Principal Post-Departure Brochure Distribution Prohibition Obligation
In BER Case 83-1, the firm principal terminated an engineer but continued to distribute a brochure listing that engineer as a 'key employee' both during the notice period and after actual departure.
Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Personnel Listing Prohibition Obligation
The BER 83-1 firm principal was obligated to cease distributing the promotional brochure listing the terminated engineer as a 'key employee' after that engineer actually departed the firm, as continued distribution after actual departure constituted a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance firm qualifications.
Upon actual departure of the terminated engineer from the firm
since the engineer distributed the brochure after the terminated engineer left the firm, the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
Firm Negligent-Origin Inaction Non-Excuse After Actual Knowledge Obligation
The firm's brochure listed Engineer A as an electrical engineer by what appears to be a negligent oversight. After Engineer A notified the marketing director, six months passed without correction, transforming the character of the inaction.
Engineering Firm (through marketing director and firm principal)
Negligent-Origin Inaction Non-Excuse After Actual Knowledge Obligation
Although the initial discipline misrepresentation in the firm's brochure arose from a negligent oversight rather than intentional deception, the firm was obligated to recognize that continued inaction after receiving actual knowledge of the error — through Engineer A's notification to the marketing director — could no longer be characterized as mere oversight and risked constituting improper and unethical conduct.
From the point of actual knowledge (Engineer A's notification to marketing director) through the six-month period of inaction
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 90-4
Continued listing of departing hydrology engineer in firm brochure and resume
In BER Case 90-4, the Board found neither element clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a key employee (pertinence uncertain) and the firm's inclusion appeared to be an oversight without enhancement intent, so no violation was found — though the Board did not condone the failure to correct.
BER 90-4 demonstrates the exculpatory operation of the dual-element test: where the misrepresented information is not clearly pertinent (engineer not highlighted as key, hydrology not a significant service area) and intent to enhance is absent (oversight without malice), the test is not satisfied and no violation is found.
In BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm
the inclusion of the name of the departing engineer in the firm's brochure and resume did not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation Invoked For Engineer A
After six months of inaction by the marketing director, Engineer A's next ethical step is to escalate the matter internally to the firm principal before considering external reporting; the graduated escalation principle requires exhausting internal channels first
{'credential': 'Engineer (licensed)', 'role_within_firm': 'Marketing Director', 'action_taken': 'Acknowledged error verbally, promised correction', 'outcome': 'No correction made after six months'}
The marketing director, who is also a licensed engineer, was alerted by Engineer A to the misrepresentation of Engineer A's discipline in firm promotional literature. The marketing director acknowledged the error and promised correction, but failed to correct it over a six-month period.
{'type': 'controls', 'target': 'Firm Promotional Literature'}
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Discipline-Misrepresented EIT Staff Engineer'}
Credential-Misrepresenting Marketing Director Engineer
the marketing director indicates that the error will be corrected
Marketing Director Promised Correction Follow-Through Six Month Inaction
The marketing director acknowledged the error and promised correction, but six months elapsed without any corrective action, perpetuating the ongoing misrepresentation in firm promotional materials.
The marketing director, upon explicitly promising Engineer A that the discipline misrepresentation would be corrected, was obligated to follow through on that promise within a reasonable time and to take affirmative steps to implement the correction; the six-month failure to act constitutes a breach of this promise-based obligation.
the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature, and the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected
From the date of the promise through the six-month period of inaction
Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation Invoked For Engineer A
Engineer A appropriately engaged the marketing director collegially before any external escalation; however, after six months of inaction, the collegial engagement phase has been exhausted and the obligation to escalate further — first to the firm principal — is now triggered
The initial alert to the marketing director satisfied the collegial engagement requirement; the prolonged non-response converts what may have been an inadvertent error into a sustained violation requiring further action
BER 90-4 Firm Principal Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Permissibility Assessment
In BER Case 90-4, a hydrology engineer gave two weeks' notice of departure. The firm continued to list the engineer in brochures and resumes. The Board found this permissible under the totality of circumstances.
Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation
The BER 90-4 firm principal was obligated to assess whether continued listing of the departing hydrology engineer in firm brochures and resumes constituted a pertinent-fact misrepresentation by evaluating the totality of circumstances — including that the engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee,' that the engineer was not the only firm expert in hydrology, and that hydrology did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — and the Board found that under these facts, continued listing did not rise to an ethical violation.
this area of practice did not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by the firm
{'role_in_firm': 'Principal', 'obligation': 'Respond to internal escalation and ensure timely correction of marketing inaccuracies', 'risk': 'Continued inaction after actual knowledge constitutes ethical breach'}
The firm principal is the escalation target Engineer A should approach after six months of inaction by the marketing director. The principal bears ultimate institutional responsibility for ensuring the firm's marketing materials are accurate and corrected expeditiously.
{'type': 'escalation_target_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Discipline-Misrepresented EIT Staff Engineer'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Marketing Director Credential-Misrepresenting Marketing Director Engineer'}
{'credential': 'EIT (Engineer-in-Training)', 'actual_discipline': 'Mechanical Engineering', 'misrepresented_discipline': 'Electrical Engineering', 'employer_type': 'Medium-sized consulting engineering firm', 'location': 'Small city'}
Engineer A is an EIT with a mechanical engineering degree whose firm's marketing literature falsely lists them as an electrical engineer. Engineer A identified the error, reported it to the marketing director, but the correction was not made after six months.
{'type': 'misrepresented_by', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm Marketing Materials'}
{'type': 'notified', 'target': 'Marketing Director Engineer'}
Discipline-Misrepresented EIT Staff Engineer
Engineer A Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Discipline Error
The discipline misrepresentation appears to have been an inadvertent error (not deliberate fraud), making collegial engagement the appropriate first step, which Engineer A correctly took by alerting the marketing director.
Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Obligation
Engineer A appropriately fulfilled the collegial pre-reporting engagement obligation by first approaching the marketing director directly about the discipline misrepresentation before any external escalation; this collegial step was correctly taken and satisfies the initial collegial duty.
At the time Engineer A first discovered the misrepresentation