Aerospace engineer laid off after 12 years, advised to seek managerial roles; rewrote resume to emphasize minor managerial experience and de-emphasize technical design expertise; Board found this permissible as emphasis rather than exaggeration.
Resume Emphasis Permissible Boundary Non-Deception Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained to remain within the permissible boundary of resume emphasis — restructuring his resume to highlight managerial experience was permissible as a degree of emphasis rather than exaggeration, provided it did not deceive the prospective employer about his actual competence to perform the managerial role.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-Deception provisions; BER Case No. 72-11
we are inclined to the more charitable view that his action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis.
At the time of resume preparation and submission for new employment
the purpose of the language in the Code (in this context) is 'to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review — Cases addressing misrepresentation and deceptive statements in professional business dealings
Engineer A's deliberate misrepresentation of Engineer C's withdrawn interest as active interest to pressure Engineer B in negotiations
Analogical precedential reasoning for assessing whether Engineer A's misleading statement about Engineer C's interest constitutes an ethical violation under professional codes governing honesty in business negotiations
BER 86-6 Engineer Implies Sole Authorship
Colleagues whose contributions were obscured would be professionally disadvantaged
Prospective employer would make hiring and compensation decisions based on falsely inflated individual contribution
Do not obscure truth through artful implication
Fair attribution of collaborative professional work
Truthfulness in communications with employers
Enhance personal attractiveness to prospective employer by appearing to be the primary or sole designer of significant patented products
Self-assessment of individual vs. team contributions
Post-case review context; 1986 precedent case referenced in discussion
Duty to accurately represent professional contributions and credit
Duty to give proper credit to colleagues for collaborative work
NSPE Code prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications and experience
Obligation not to mislead prospective employers through implication or omission
Engineer A (BER 86-6) submitted a resume to a prospective employer that implied personal sole responsibility for patented products that were in fact designed collaboratively by a six-person team, without explicitly stating but deliberately implying individual credit. The NSPE Board reviewed this as a precedent case and deemed it unethical misrepresentation through misleading implication.
BER Board BER-72-11-86-6-Present Case Dual-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Triangulation
BER Dual-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
The BER exercised the capability to triangulate between BER 72-11 (permissible emphasis) and BER 86-6 (impermissible implied sole authorship) to locate the present negotiation case on the misrepresentation spectrum, finding it different from both precedents but sharing the artful misleading character of BER 86-6
The BER explicitly triangulated among BER 72-11, BER 86-6, and the present case to reach its conclusion about Engineer A's negotiation conduct
Analyzing BER 72-11 and BER 86-6 as dual precedents, identifying their key factual distinctions, and concluding that the present case differs from both while the negotiation statements merit rebuke as artfully misleading
the Board is of the view that the two earlier cases and the present case are different in a variety of ways.
But, importantly, the Board believes that Engineers A's comments to Engineer B, were misleading and are of a nature that merit the rebuke of the Board.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 72-11
In BER Case No. 72-11, the Board considered a case involving engineer John Doe who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for 12 years.
In deciding that Doe was not in violation of the code for rewriting his employment resume to emphasize his managerial and administrative experience... the Board noted... 'we are inclined to the more charitable view that his action can be condoned as something less than an exaggeration in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning for the present case
Cited as precedent addressing resume emphasis vs. exaggeration: the Board found that an engineer who reframed his experience on a resume to emphasize minor managerial duties was not in violation of the Code, distinguishing permissible emphasis from deceptive misrepresentation of qualifications
BER Case No. 72-11 review before BER Case No. 86-6 review
For example, in BER Case No. 72-11 [1972]... Later in BER Case No. 86-6 [1986]
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 86-6
In BER Case No. 86-6, the Board reviewed a case involving Engineer A who was seeking employment with Employer Y.
In deciding that it was unethical for Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of the products, the Board indicated that although Engineer A did not specifically state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer.
Cited as precedent establishing that implying sole personal responsibility for team-designed work on a resume is unethical, because such statements are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth about collaborative contributions
BER Case No. 86-6 review before NSPE Board review of Engineer A's conduct in the present case
Later in BER Case No. 86-6, the Board reviewed a case... Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board is of the view that the two earlier cases and the present case are different in a variety of ways
NSPE Board review of Engineer A's conduct in the present case
Ethical ambiguity resolved; conduct formally classified as impermissible; ruling enters professional precedent record; standard clarified for future negotiation contexts
End of NSPE Board review process; final determination phase
The NSPE Board reached the formal conclusion that Engineer A's statement was misleading and ethically impermissible, producing an authoritative ethical determination that applied professional standards to the conduct.
CausalLink_BER 86-6 Engineer Implies Sole
CausalLink_Engineer A Misrepresents Compe
CausalLink_Engineer B Stalls Negotiations
CausalLink_Engineer C Expresses Initial I
CausalLink_Engineer C Withdraws Purchase
CausalLink_Engineer Doe Rewrites Emphasis
It was unethical for Engineer A to make the statement to Engineer B in an effort to move the negotiations forward.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's statement was unethical, the statement constitutes a material omission rather than merely a misleading emphasis, placing it at the more culpable end of the misrepresentation spectrum established by BER Cases 72-11 and 86-6. In BER 72-11, Engineer Doe's selective resume emphasis was permissible because no affirmatively false impression was created about a material fact — the reframing concerned degree of involvement, not the existence or absence of a condition. In BER 86-6, implying sole credit for team work crossed into impermissible misrepresentation because a listener would form a materially false belief about authorship. The present case exceeds even BER 86-6 in culpability: Engineer A did not merely omit a qualifying detail but actively invoked a real prior event — Engineer C's initial interest — while deliberately suppressing the single most material fact about that event, namely that Engineer C had definitively withdrawn. The criterion that separates permissible selective emphasis from impermissible implied misrepresentation across all three cases is whether the omitted information would, if known, reverse or materially alter the conclusion a reasonable listener would draw. Engineer C's withdrawal would unambiguously reverse Engineer B's inference of active competitive pressure, making the omission categorically impermissible under the prohibition on statements containing material omissions.
The Board's conclusion, while correct, does not address a distinct ethical harm that Engineer A's statement inflicted on Engineer C independent of any harm to Engineer B. By invoking Engineer C's identity — even implicitly through the reference to 'another company' — as an instrument of commercial pressure, Engineer A appropriated Engineer C's professional position without her knowledge or consent and misrepresented that position to a third party. Engineer C had made a deliberate professional decision to withdraw, and that decision carried its own integrity. Engineer A's statement effectively reversed Engineer C's withdrawal in Engineer B's mind, potentially exposing Engineer C to unwanted follow-up, reputational association with a transaction she had rejected, or professional embarrassment if the misrepresentation were later discovered. The NSPE Code's prohibition on promoting one's own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession, and the general obligation to treat colleagues with honesty and respect, impose on Engineer A an independent duty not to misrepresent a fellow engineer's professional stance without her consent. This collegial dimension of the violation is analytically separate from the deception of Engineer B and reinforces the conclusion that the ethical breach was multi-directional.
The Board's conclusion implicitly establishes that Engineer B's stalling behavior — however commercially frustrating — provides no ethical mitigation for Engineer A's misrepresentation, and this principle deserves explicit articulation. The NSPE Code's honesty obligations are not conditioned on the good-faith conduct of the counterparty; they are categorical duties owed to colleagues, clients, and the profession regardless of provocation or commercial pressure. A consequentialist might argue that Engineer B's bad-faith delay created the very pressure that Engineer A sought to relieve, and that the harm of a slightly accelerated negotiation is trivial compared to the harm of indefinite stalling. However, this reasoning fails on two grounds. First, the potential harm to Engineer B from acting on a false belief about competitive pressure — including overpaying, forgoing superior alternatives, or making a strategically premature commitment — is not trivial and was entirely foreseeable. Second, normalizing the use of misleading statements as a corrective to negotiation bad faith would erode the foundational trust that makes professional engineering transactions possible, imposing a systemic harm on the profession that far outweighs any individual negotiation benefit. The availability of truthful alternatives — such as disclosing that prior interest had existed but was no longer active, or simply asserting urgency without invoking a third party — makes Engineer A's choice to mislead more culpable, not less, because the commercial goal could have been pursued without deception.
Engineer A's statement harms Engineer C's professional reputation and interests in a meaningful, if indirect, way. By invoking Engineer C's name — or at minimum her firm's identity as 'another company' — to manufacture competitive urgency that no longer exists, Engineer A effectively deploys Engineer C as an unwitting instrument of commercial pressure. Engineer C had definitively withdrawn, and she had no opportunity to consent to, correct, or contextualize how her earlier interest would be characterized. This implicates an independent ethical duty: engineers owe a duty of non-misrepresentation not only to direct counterparties but also to third-party colleagues whose professional standing or stated positions may be distorted by another engineer's strategic framing. The NSPE Code's prohibition on statements containing material omissions and its requirement that engineers be guided by the highest standards of honesty in all relations — not merely in dealings with clients or employers — extends to how one engineer characterizes another's position to a third party. Engineer A's failure to disclose Engineer C's withdrawal thus constitutes both a misrepresentation to Engineer B and an unauthorized distortion of Engineer C's professional stance.
The availability of a fully truthful alternative statement makes Engineer A's choice to mislead significantly more culpable, not merely marginally so. Had Engineer A said something to the effect that a third party had previously expressed interest but ultimately decided not to proceed, and that this history of external interest suggested the subsidiary had genuine market appeal, the statement would have been accurate, complete, and potentially still persuasive. The existence of that readily available truthful path demonstrates that Engineer A's decision to omit Engineer C's withdrawal was not a product of ignorance, ambiguity, or reasonable inference — it was a deliberate editorial choice to suppress a material fact in order to create a false impression. Under the NSPE Code's prohibition on statements containing material omissions, the ethical violation is not merely that the statement was incomplete; it is that the incompleteness was purposeful and directional, designed to induce a specific false belief. The deliberate suppression of a known, dispositive fact when a truthful alternative was readily available elevates the conduct from careless imprecision to calculated misrepresentation.
Engineer B's stalling behavior, while it created the commercial pressure Engineer A sought to relieve, provides no ethical mitigation whatsoever for Engineer A's decision to deploy a misleading statement. The NSPE Code's honesty obligations are not conditioned on the good faith conduct of the counterparty; they are categorical duties that apply regardless of whether the other party is behaving cooperatively, strategically, or in bad faith. If Engineer B's stalling was itself a negotiation tactic — as is common in commercial transactions — Engineer A retained numerous legitimate responses: setting a deadline, withdrawing the offer, seeking other buyers, or simply disclosing the true state of market interest. None of those alternatives required misrepresentation. The Board's analysis implicitly recognizes this by not treating Engineer B's conduct as a mitigating factor, and that silence is analytically correct. Negotiation bad faith by one party does not create an ethical license for the other party to respond with deception; it merely creates a business problem that must be solved through honest means. The engineering profession's dual identity as both a commercial enterprise and a learned profession does not resolve this tension in favor of commercial expediency — it resolves it in favor of professional integrity, because the learned-profession dimension imposes ethical floors that commercial norms cannot override.
The fact that Engineer A's statement was grounded in a real prior event — Engineer C's initial expression of interest — does not create a meaningful ethical distinction from a wholly fabricated competing buyer. The moral wrong in both scenarios is identical: Engineer B is induced to believe that active competitive pressure exists when it does not. The mechanism of deception differs in form but not in substance. A wholly fabricated buyer is a lie of commission; Engineer A's statement is a lie of omission — the deliberate suppression of the material fact that the referenced interest had been definitively withdrawn. Under NSPE Code Section III.3.a., which explicitly prohibits statements containing material omissions intended to create false impressions, the two scenarios are morally equivalent because both produce the same false belief through intentional conduct. Indeed, the use of a real prior event may be more insidious than outright fabrication, because it provides Engineer A with a veneer of technical truthfulness that makes the deception harder for Engineer B to detect and challenge. The criterion that renders the two scenarios equivalent is not the truth-value of the words spoken but the falsity of the impression deliberately created.
The present case sits decisively closer to the impermissible implied misrepresentation pole established in BER Case 86-6 than to the permissible selective emphasis pole of BER Case 72-11, and the criterion that definitively separates all three cases is whether the selective presentation of information was designed to induce a materially false belief in the mind of the recipient about a fact that would influence their decision. In BER Case 72-11, Engineer Doe's resume reframing involved presenting genuine accomplishments in their most favorable light — the recipient was not led to believe something false about the world; they were simply given an optimistic but accurate account of Doe's actual contributions. In BER Case 86-6, the implied sole authorship crossed into misrepresentation because it caused the recipient to hold a false belief — that Engineer A alone had produced work that was in fact collaborative — which would have materially affected the hiring decision. In the present case, Engineer A's statement causes Engineer B to hold a false belief — that active competing interest exists — which would materially affect Engineer B's negotiation posture and potentially the price and terms of the transaction. The distinguishing criterion is therefore the falsity of the induced belief about a decision-relevant fact, not merely the selectivity of the information presented.
When Engineer A's duty of honesty as a professional engineer conflicts with any fiduciary or agency obligation to advance the selling firm's commercial interests, the professional honesty duty must prevail. The NSPE Code is explicit that engineers shall not promote their own interest — or by extension their employer's or client's interest — at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession. The engineering profession's ethical framework does not recognize a 'negotiation exception' to honesty obligations, and the Board's analysis in the present case confirms this by finding the statement unethical without any qualification based on Engineer A's role as a commercial negotiator. This resolution is not merely a matter of professional rule-following; it reflects a deeper structural point: the value of an engineer's word in commercial dealings depends entirely on the profession's reputation for honesty. If engineers were permitted to deploy misleading statements whenever a fiduciary duty to a client or employer could be invoked as justification, the professional bond of trust that makes engineering representations credible — to clients, counterparties, regulators, and the public — would be systematically eroded. The commercial duty must therefore yield to the professional honesty obligation, not because commercial interests are unimportant, but because the long-term integrity of the profession is a precondition for the profession's commercial viability.
A sufficiently complete disclosure could theoretically have transformed Engineer A's statement into an ethical one, but the act of invoking a withdrawn party's interest specifically to manufacture urgency remains inherently deceptive regardless of accompanying disclosure unless that disclosure fully neutralizes the false impression. The conditional defense of full circumstance disclosure identified in the Board's analysis requires that the disclosure be complete enough that Engineer B would not be left with a false belief about the current state of competitive interest. A disclosure that mentioned Engineer C's prior interest while omitting the withdrawal would still be deceptive. A disclosure that mentioned both the prior interest and the withdrawal — framed honestly — would eliminate the deception but would also eliminate the commercial leverage Engineer A sought to create, because Engineer B would correctly understand that no active competing buyer exists. This analysis reveals that the conditional defense, properly understood, is not really a defense at all in the present case: the only disclosure complete enough to be ethical is one that destroys the very impression Engineer A was trying to create. The ethical violation therefore inheres not in the form of the statement but in the intent to induce a false belief about competitive pressure, and no disclosure short of full transparency about Engineer C's withdrawal can cure that intent.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer A violated a categorical duty of non-deception by crafting a statement that was technically anchored in a real prior event but deliberately omitted the material fact of Engineer C's definitive withdrawal. Kant's categorical imperative is instructive here: if the maxim 'engineers may invoke prior interest as current competitive pressure when negotiations stall' were universalized, the entire institution of professional negotiation would be undermined, because counterparties could never rely on representations about market interest. More directly, Engineer A treated Engineer B as a means to a commercial end — a target to be manipulated into accelerating a decision — rather than as a rational agent entitled to accurate information on which to base a consequential financial choice. The NSPE Code's provisions prohibiting material omissions and deceptive acts are themselves codifications of this deontological principle: the wrong is not contingent on whether harm materialized, but on whether Engineer A acted in a manner inconsistent with the respect owed to Engineer B as a rational decision-maker. The technical truth of the words spoken provides no deontological shelter, because the duty violated is the duty of non-deception, and deception can be accomplished through selective omission as effectively as through outright falsehood.
From a consequentialist perspective, the potential benefit of accelerating a stalled negotiation does not justify Engineer A's misleading statement, and the analysis is not close. The harms at stake are multiple and compounding: Engineer B may make a materially worse financial decision — overpaying, forgoing superior alternatives, or accepting unfavorable terms — based on a false belief that competitive pressure exists; Engineer C's professional standing is implicitly distorted without her knowledge or consent; and the broader professional credibility of engineering as a discipline grounded in honest representation is incrementally eroded each time such tactics are normalized. Against these harms, the benefit is merely the acceleration of a transaction that could have been advanced through honest means — setting deadlines, making accurate disclosures about market interest, or accepting that Engineer B's pace reflects genuine deliberation. A consequentialist calculus that properly accounts for systemic effects — the erosion of professional trust if misleading negotiation tactics become acceptable — yields a strongly negative verdict on Engineer A's conduct. The NSPE Code's categorical prohibitions on deception and material omissions can themselves be understood as consequentialist rules: they exist precisely because a profession-wide commitment to honesty produces better aggregate outcomes than a regime of case-by-case consequentialist calculation that permits deception when the immediate benefits appear to outweigh the immediate harms.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's decision to deploy an artfully misleading statement reveals a disposition to subordinate professional character to commercial expediency — precisely the disposition the NSPE Code's identification of honesty and integrity as hallmark engineering qualities is designed to counteract. A person of genuine professional integrity, confronted with a stalling counterparty, would ask what an honest engineer would do in this situation, not what statement could be technically defended while achieving the desired commercial effect. The answer to that question would not include invoking a withdrawn party's interest as though it were active. Comparing the three cases as a pattern of professional character: BER Case 72-11 involves no character failure — presenting genuine accomplishments favorably is consistent with honest self-advocacy. BER Case 86-6 involves a character failure of moderate severity — implying sole credit for collaborative work reflects a willingness to allow a false impression to persist for personal gain. The present case involves a character failure of greater severity — Engineer A actively constructed a misleading statement rather than merely allowing a false impression to persist passively, and did so in a context where the financial stakes for Engineer B were potentially significant. The progression across these cases suggests an escalating pattern of willingness to compromise honesty for advantage, and the virtue ethics framework identifies this escalating pattern as a more serious professional character concern than any single instance considered in isolation.
The NSPE framework treats the deceptive act itself as the ethical violation, independent of whether concrete financial harm to Engineer B actually materialized. This conclusion follows directly from the structure of the Code provisions at issue: Section II.5 prohibits deceptive acts categorically, without requiring proof of resulting harm; Section III.3.a prohibits statements containing material omissions without requiring that the omission cause a measurable adverse consequence. The ethical wrong is complete at the moment Engineer A makes the misleading statement with the intent to induce a false belief, regardless of whether Engineer B ultimately makes a worse financial decision, makes no decision at all, or independently discovers the truth before acting. This act-based rather than outcome-based structure is not merely a technical feature of the Code; it reflects a sound ethical judgment that the reliability of professional representations cannot depend on whether deception happened to succeed or cause harm in a particular instance. If the ethical verdict turned on actual harm, engineers would be permitted to attempt deception freely, with ethical accountability arising only when the deception worked and caused measurable damage — a standard that would provide no meaningful deterrent and would fundamentally mischaracterize the nature of the professional duty violated.
Engineer C's hypothetical consent to disclose her prior interest — without revealing her withdrawal — would not alter the ethical standing of Engineer A's statement, because the ethical violation inheres in the false impression created in Engineer B's mind, not in whether Engineer C authorized the reference to her earlier interest. Even with Engineer C's consent to be named as a prior interested party, Engineer B would still be led to believe that active competitive pressure exists when it does not. The consent of the referenced party to be mentioned does not transform a materially misleading statement into an honest one; it merely removes one dimension of the ethical problem — the unauthorized use of Engineer C's position — while leaving the core violation intact. This analysis also clarifies that the duty Engineer A violated toward Engineer B is independent of any duty owed to Engineer C. The obligation not to make statements containing material omissions runs to Engineer B as the recipient of the misleading information, and that obligation cannot be discharged by obtaining consent from the third party whose circumstances are being misrepresented. Engineer C's consent would be relevant only to the separate question of whether Engineer A improperly used Engineer C's identity or position without authorization — it has no bearing on whether Engineer A deceived Engineer B.
Engineer A's obligation to provide an accurate and complete answer would have been at least as strong — and arguably stronger — had Engineer B directly asked whether other parties were interested in the subsidiary, compared to the obligation that arose from Engineer A volunteering the misleading statement unprompted. The NSPE Code does not explicitly distinguish between deception by spontaneous assertion and deception by misleading response to a direct inquiry, but the ethical logic strongly supports treating a direct inquiry as imposing a heightened duty of accuracy. When Engineer B asks a direct question, Engineer B is explicitly signaling that the answer is material to their decision-making — they are invoking their status as a rational agent seeking information on which to act. A misleading response to that direct inquiry would compound the violation by exploiting the trust implicit in the act of asking. In the present case, Engineer A volunteered the misleading statement without being asked, which is itself a significant ethical failure. But had Engineer B asked directly and Engineer A responded with the same misleading framing, the violation would be at least equally serious because Engineer A would have been responding to an explicit request for accurate information with a deliberately incomplete answer. The NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts and material omissions applies with full force in both scenarios, and the spontaneous versus responsive distinction does not create a meaningful ethical gradient — both are prohibited, and both for the same reason: they induce false beliefs in a party entitled to accurate information.
The most fundamental tension in this case — between Engineer A's legitimate commercial interest in closing a stalled negotiation and the profession's categorical demand for honesty — was resolved entirely in favor of honesty, with no mitigation granted for the commercial pressure Engineer A faced. The Board's conclusion makes clear that the engineering profession's dual identity as both a business enterprise and a learned profession does not create a bifurcated ethical standard. Engineers do not shed their honesty obligations when they step into a negotiating role. The principle that engineers are not exempt from honesty requirements in business dealings operates as a side-constraint on commercial conduct, not merely as a factor to be weighed against business expediency. This resolution teaches that when honesty principles and commercial interest principles collide in an engineering context, honesty is lexically prior: no degree of legitimate business purpose — not even the relief of genuine negotiating pressure caused by the other party's bad faith stalling — can justify a materially misleading statement. Engineer B's stalling behavior, while creating the very pressure Engineer A sought to relieve, is treated as entirely irrelevant to the ethical calculus, confirming that the NSPE framework does not recognize a 'provoked deception' defense.
The three-case comparative framework — BER Case 72-11 (permissible selective resume emphasis), BER Case 86-6 (impermissible implied sole authorship), and the present case (impermissible implied active competing interest) — reveals a coherent criterion that definitively separates permissible selective emphasis from impermissible implied misrepresentation: the test is whether the omitted information, if disclosed, would materially alter the factual impression a reasonable recipient would form about a matter on which they are entitled to accurate information for decision-making purposes. In BER 72-11, the reframed resume emphasis did not suppress any fact that would change the employer's assessment of the candidate's actual qualifications. In BER 86-6, omitting team contributions created a false impression of individual capability that directly affected the hiring decision. In the present case, omitting Engineer C's definitive withdrawal created a false impression of active competitive pressure that was designed to and could materially affect Engineer B's financial and strategic decision-making. The present case sits unambiguously at the impermissible pole — indeed, it may be more culpable than BER 86-6 because the misleading impression was not merely a byproduct of selective framing but was the deliberate instrument of commercial pressure. The criterion that unifies all three cases is whether the selective presentation was designed to manufacture a false belief about a decision-relevant fact, as opposed to merely presenting true facts in their most favorable light.
The case establishes that the principle requiring full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances — specifically, that Engineer C had definitively withdrawn — functions as a conditional defense whose availability makes the choice not to disclose more, not less, culpable. The Board's analysis implies that Engineer A could have made a truthful statement acknowledging prior third-party interest while accurately characterizing its current status, and that such a statement would have been ethically permissible. The existence of this readily available truthful alternative collapses any argument that Engineer A faced a genuine dilemma between honesty and effective negotiation: Engineer A could have pursued the legitimate commercial goal of signaling market interest without misrepresenting Engineer C's position. This interaction between the full-disclosure principle and the prohibition on material omissions teaches a broader lesson about principle prioritization: when a truthful path to a legitimate goal exists, the choice of a deceptive path is not a tragic conflict between competing duties but a straightforward ethical failure. Furthermore, by invoking Engineer C's identity and prior conduct without her knowledge or consent to manufacture commercial pressure, Engineer A also violated the independent principle against harming a colleague's professional interests — a dimension the Board's explicit conclusion does not foreground but which the NSPE Code's colleague-protection provisions independently support. The convergence of the honesty principle, the material-omission prohibition, and the collegial non-impairment principle on the same conclusion reinforces that Engineer A's conduct was not a close case at the margins of permissible strategic communication but a clear violation across multiple independent ethical dimensions.
Should Engineer A accurately disclose Engineer C's current status — including her definitive withdrawal — when referencing third-party interest to Engineer B, or may Engineer A invoke Engineer C's prior interest as though it remains active to accelerate the stalled negotiation?
Engineer A, acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary, must decide how to characterize Engineer C's interest to Engineer B during stalled negotiations. Engineer C initially expressed interest in purchasing the subsidiary but has since definitively withdrawn. Engineer A wants to move negotiations forward and is considering invoking Engineer C's prior interest to create competitive urgency.
Accurately represent the current state of third-party interest to Engineer B, including the fact that Engineer C initially expressed interest but has since definitively decided not to proceed, thereby preserving the truthfulness of any reference to prior market interest.
Reference Engineer C's earlier expressed interest to Engineer B as a signal of market demand — stating that 'another company has expressed interest' — without disclosing that Engineer C has since definitively withdrawn, on the basis that the statement is technically grounded in a real prior event and that commercial negotiation norms permit strategic framing of market conditions.
Communicate urgency to Engineer B through truthful means — such as setting a deadline for the offer, noting the seller's timeline constraints, or indicating that the subsidiary may be taken off the market — without invoking any third party's interest, thereby advancing the legitimate commercial goal of accelerating the negotiation without misrepresenting the competitive landscape.
Should Engineer A fully disclose all material circumstances surrounding Engineer C's interest — including that Engineer C has definitively withdrawn — before or when referencing prior third-party interest to Engineer B, or may Engineer A omit Engineer C's withdrawal on the grounds that partial disclosure of prior interest is sufficient?
Engineer A must decide whether to fully disclose all circumstances surrounding Engineer C's interest — including her definitive withdrawal — when making any reference to third-party competitive interest during negotiations with Engineer B. The Board identified full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances as a conditional defense that, if exercised, would have changed the ethical outcome.
When referencing prior third-party interest to Engineer B, fully disclose all material circumstances — including that Engineer C initially expressed interest but has since definitively decided not to proceed — so that Engineer B can form an accurate understanding of the current competitive landscape and Engineer A retains the conditional ethical defense of complete disclosure.
Reference Engineer C's prior expressed interest to Engineer B without disclosing her subsequent withdrawal, on the basis that the prior interest is a real historical fact and that the current status of that interest is a matter of commercial confidentiality or negotiating strategy that Engineer A is not obligated to volunteer.
Refrain entirely from referencing Engineer C or any third-party interest — whether accurately or inaccurately — and instead pursue negotiation acceleration through means that do not implicate Engineer C's professional position or require disclosure decisions about her withdrawal status.
Should Engineer A treat the duty of non-misrepresentation as extending to Engineer C's professional position — refraining from characterizing Engineer C as an active competing buyer without her knowledge or consent — or may Engineer A invoke Engineer C's prior interest without regard to the independent collegial duty owed to Engineer C as a fellow professional?
Engineer A's statement to Engineer B implicates not only the duty of honesty owed to Engineer B as a direct counterparty but also an independent collegial duty owed to Engineer C, whose professional position and prior decision to withdraw are being misrepresented without her knowledge or consent. Engineer A must decide whether the duty of non-misrepresentation extends to how one engineer characterizes another's professional stance to a third party.
Treat the duty of non-misrepresentation as extending to Engineer C's professional position and refrain entirely from characterizing Engineer C — or her firm — as an active or interested competing buyer, recognizing that doing so without her knowledge or consent and contrary to her actual current position constitutes an unauthorized and potentially reputation-affecting use of her professional status.
Reference Engineer C's prior expressed interest as a historical signal of market demand — without identifying Engineer C by name — on the basis that a past expression of interest is a real fact about the subsidiary's market appeal and that the collegial duty of non-misrepresentation does not extend to preventing accurate references to historical events involving third parties.
Before making any reference to Engineer C's prior interest in negotiations with Engineer B, seek Engineer C's explicit consent to disclose the full circumstances of her prior interest and withdrawal, thereby respecting Engineer C's professional autonomy and ensuring that any reference to her position is authorized and accurately framed.
Should Engineer A treat the technical grounding of the statement in Engineer C's real prior interest as providing a meaningful ethical distinction from fabrication — permitting the statement as permissible selective emphasis of a real fact — or must Engineer A recognize that the deliberate omission of Engineer C's definitive withdrawal renders the statement morally equivalent to fabrication and categorically impermissible?
Engineer A's statement is technically grounded in a real prior event — Engineer C's initial expression of interest — rather than a wholly fabricated competing buyer. The Board must determine whether this technical grounding in a real prior fact creates any meaningful ethical distinction from outright fabrication, and where the present case sits on the spectrum established by BER Cases 72-11 (permissible selective resume emphasis) and 86-6 (impermissible implied sole authorship).
Recognize that the deliberate omission of Engineer C's definitive withdrawal renders the statement morally equivalent to fabrication under the Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition, because the ethical standard is the overall false impression created — not the technical truth-value of the words spoken — and refrain from making the statement in its misleading form.
Treat the reference to Engineer C's prior expressed interest as analogous to the permissible selective emphasis established in BER Case 72-11 — presenting a real historical fact in its most favorable light without affirmative misstatement — on the basis that the statement is technically accurate and that the current status of Engineer C's interest is a matter of commercial context that Engineer A is not obligated to elaborate.
Reframe the statement to accurately reflect the historical market interest without implying current active competition — for example, noting that the subsidiary has attracted prior third-party interest that did not ultimately proceed — thereby preserving the legitimate commercial signal of market appeal while eliminating the materially false impression of active competing urgency.
Should Engineer A treat the professional duty of honesty as a categorical constraint that prevails over any commercial or fiduciary obligation to advance the selling firm's interest — including when Engineer B's stalling creates legitimate commercial pressure — or may Engineer A subordinate the honesty duty to the commercial interest in closing the transaction when the counterparty is acting in bad faith?
Engineer A faces a tension between the professional duty of honesty — which the NSPE Code identifies as a hallmark engineering quality owed to the public, employers, clients, and colleagues — and any commercial or fiduciary obligation Engineer A holds as chief negotiator to advance the selling firm's interest in closing the transaction. Engineer B's stalling behavior created the commercial pressure Engineer A sought to relieve, raising the question of whether negotiation bad faith by one party alters the ethical calculus for the other.
Treat the professional duty of honesty as a categorical side-constraint that prevails over any commercial or fiduciary obligation to advance the selling firm's interest, recognizing that the NSPE Code does not recognize a negotiation exception to honesty obligations and that Engineer B's stalling behavior provides no ethical mitigation for a misleading statement.
Treat the professional duty of honesty as one factor to be weighed against the commercial fiduciary obligation to advance the selling firm's interest in closing the transaction, on the basis that engineering's dual identity as both a business and a learned profession creates a bifurcated ethical standard in which commercial norms govern commercial conduct and the NSPE Code's honesty provisions are not designed to override legitimate commercial agency obligations.
Advance the selling firm's commercial interest in closing the stalled negotiation through honest means — setting a deadline for the offer, withdrawing the offer temporarily, seeking other buyers, or accurately disclosing the true state of market interest — thereby satisfying both the professional duty of honesty and the commercial obligation to the selling firm without requiring any subordination of one to the other.
Should Engineer A's ethical culpability for the misleading statement be assessed as complete at the moment of the act — independent of whether Engineer B suffered concrete financial harm — or should the ethical analysis be conditioned on whether Engineer B's reliance on the false impression of competitive pressure produced a materially worse financial outcome?
The NSPE framework must determine whether the ethical violation in Engineer A's misleading statement is act-based — complete at the moment of the misleading statement regardless of outcome — or outcome-sensitive, such that the materialization of concrete financial harm to Engineer B would change the ethical analysis. This determination has implications for whether the deceptive act itself or its consequences define the scope of the professional duty violated.
Recognize that the ethical violation is complete at the moment of making the misleading statement with intent to induce a false belief, independent of whether Engineer B suffered concrete financial harm, because the NSPE Code's categorical prohibitions on deceptive acts and material omissions are act-based and do not require proof of resulting harm to establish the ethical wrong.
Treat the ethical analysis as outcome-sensitive, finding a violation only if Engineer B demonstrably made a materially worse financial decision in direct reliance on the misleading statement, on the basis that professional ethics prohibitions are grounded in harm prevention and that the absence of realized harm should mitigate or eliminate the ethical finding where the deception did not produce the adverse consequence it risked.
Treat the potential for material financial harm to Engineer B as an aggravating factor that triggers heightened honesty obligations and heightened scrutiny of the misleading statement — finding the act-based violation established by the misleading statement itself, while recognizing that the materialization of concrete harm would independently support additional remedial or disciplinary consequences beyond the ethical finding.
Doe's 12-year employment at aerospace company before Doe's layoff and subsequent job search
engineer John Doe who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for 12 years... Doe was laid off when contracts with his company were terminated
Doe's 12-year employment at aerospace company
Doe's layoff before Doe's multi-month job search
Along with thousands of other engineers in the aerospace industry, Doe was laid off... After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success
Doe's multi-month job search before Doe rewriting his resume
After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success... Doe devised a new resume
{'role': 'Prospective employer evaluating engineering candidates', 'harm': 'Recipient of misleading resume representation'}
Prospective employer in BER 86-6 to whom Engineer A submitted a misleading resume implying sole credit for team-designed patented products; represents the party the code aims to protect from deception about engineer competence.
{'type': 'receiving_application_from', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresenter'}
Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y
Engineer A invoked Engineer C's prior interest — which had definitively been withdrawn — to create false competitive urgency and move stalled negotiations forward, constituting an artfully misleading statement in a professional business context.
Engineer A (present case — firm acquisition negotiation)
Business Negotiation Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from making artfully misleading statements during the business negotiation with Engineer B — specifically, from stating 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better make up your mind' when Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase — establishing that the commercial and adversarial nature of the negotiation did not suspend or relax the duty of non-deception.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Honesty and Truthfulness provisions; NSPE Board of Ethical Review — present case
the Board is of the view that Engineer A's comments were artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with potential purchaser intended to move discussions off 'dead center'.
During the business negotiation between Engineer A and Engineer B regarding acquisition of Engineer A's subsidiary
The facts of this case suggest potential material harm to an interested party during negotiations.
This Board strongly believes that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark qualities of a practicing engineer.
Engineer A told Engineer B that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase; the Board stated that full disclosure of Engineer C's definitive withdrawal would have changed the conclusion.
Full Circumstance Disclosure Conditional Defense Activation Constraint
Engineer A was constrained such that his only available defense to the misleading statement finding — full disclosure of all circumstances relating to Engineer C, including that Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary — was not activated because Engineer A failed to make that disclosure, thereby foreclosing the defense and confirming the ethical violation.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review — present case analysis
the Board would note that if Engineer A had fully disclosed the full circumstances relating to Engineer C, the Board's conclusion would have been different.
Engineer A made artfully misleading statements to Engineer B during business negotiations for the acquisition of Engineer A's subsidiary, invoking a third party's (Engineer C's) interest that had definitively been withdrawn.
Engineer Statement Professional Bond Integrity Constraint
Engineer A was constrained by the foundational professional obligation that his words in the negotiation with Engineer B constituted a professional bond — representations upon which Engineer B was entitled to rely — such that his artfully misleading statement about Engineer C's interest violated the core principle that engineers must be mindful of their statements and that professional character is judged by the honesty and reliability of those statements.
The obligation of professional engineers to be honest, truthful, and forthcoming in their professional dealings is a critical ethical principle to which all engineers should adhere.
Throughout all professional dealings, specifically during the firm acquisition negotiation
As the expression goes, one's words are one's bond and it is often by one's words how an individual will be judged.
engineers always need to be mindful of their statements as well as their actions.
Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary; Engineer A nonetheless invoked Engineer C's prior expressed interest to create false competitive urgency in negotiations with Engineer B, misrepresenting Engineer C's professional status and position.
Third-Party Engineer Negotiation Status Non-Misrepresentation Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from misrepresenting Engineer C's current status and interest in the negotiation — specifically, from representing Engineer C as an active or interested competing buyer when Engineer C had definitively withdrawn from consideration — establishing that the duty of honesty extends to accurate representation of other engineers' professional positions.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Honesty, Truthfulness, and Collegial Obligations; NSPE Board of Ethical Review — present case
Engineer A's comments were artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with potential purchaser intended to move discussions off 'dead center'.
Engineer A Artful Misrepresentation Recognition Deficit in Subsidiary Sale Negotiation
Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the statement 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' was artfully constructed to create a false impression of active competitive pressure when Engineer C had definitively withdrawn her interest.
Engineer A was acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary and used Engineer C's prior — but definitively withdrawn — interest to pressure Engineer B into accelerating negotiations.
Engineer A's statement to Engineer B invoking Engineer C's lapsed interest as if it were current, constituting an artfully misleading statement rather than an outright lie.
Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
Engineer C had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but following consideration, Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
Engineer A BER 86-6 Prior Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration Deficit
Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration Capability
Engineer A failed to correctly calibrate the permissible scope of credit for team-designed patented products, claiming implied sole credit rather than accurately representing his role as one of six equal-rank contributing engineers
BER 86-6: Engineer A's resume misrepresented his contribution to jointly designed patented products by implying sole authorship
Implying sole personal responsibility for patented products on resume submitted to Employer Y, when his actual role was as one of six equal-rank staff engineers on the design team
Engineer A (BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresenter)
Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Contribution Sole Authorship Implication Non-Commission Deficit
Team Contribution Sole Authorship Implication Non-Commission Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that implying sole authorship of jointly designed patented products — without explicitly stating it — constituted impermissible misrepresentation intended to obscure truth
BER 86-6: Staff engineer who was one of six equal-rank engineers on a design team submitted resume implying sole personal responsibility for jointly designed patented products
Submitting a resume to Employer Y that implied personal sole responsibility for products designed by a six-engineer team, without explicitly claiming sole authorship but creating that impression through implication
although Engineer A did not specifically state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer.
Engineer A (BER 86-6) working for Employer X before Engineer A (BER 86-6) seeking employment with Employer Y
As an employee for Employer X, Engineer A had been a staff engineer... Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y
Engineer A (BER 86-6) working for Employer X
Engineer A (BER 86-6) seeking employment with Employer Y
Engineer A Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Failure in Subsidiary Sale
Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Capability
Engineer A failed to apply the awareness that business competition in engineering contexts does not suspend professional ethics obligations, and that the competitive pressure to close a stalled deal does not justify misrepresentation of the competitive landscape.
Engineer A was operating in a business negotiation context for the sale of an engineering subsidiary and failed to recognize that professional ethics codes apply fully to such business transactions.
Engineer A's decision to use a misleading competitive pressure statement in a business negotiation context, treating the negotiation as a domain where normal ethics constraints were relaxed.
Engineer A is acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer B.
In an effort to move the negotiations forward, referring to Engineer C's earlier interest, Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator Artful Misrepresentation Recognition Deficit
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his statement about Engineer C's interest constituted artful misrepresentation, as the Board found his comments were artfully misleading and merited rebuke
Engineer A made misleading statements to Engineer B during negotiations for the sale of an engineering subsidiary, implying competitive urgency from Engineer C who had already withdrawn
Failure to recognize that implying Engineer C was an active competing buyer — when Engineer C had definitively withdrawn — constituted artful misrepresentation during acquisition negotiations with Engineer B
Engineer A's comments to Engineer B, were misleading and are of a nature that merit the rebuke of the Board.
Engineer A's comments were artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with potential purchaser intended to move discussions off 'dead center.'
Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator Business Honesty Non-Exemption Recognition Deficit
Business Negotiation Honesty Standard Non-Exemption Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that professional honesty obligations apply equally to commercial business negotiations, treating the negotiation context as permitting statements that would be impermissible in other professional contexts
Engineer A's conduct in the firm sale negotiation demonstrated failure to apply professional ethics honesty standards to the commercial negotiation context
Making artfully misleading statements about Engineer C's competitive interest during firm acquisition negotiations, apparently treating the commercial negotiation context as exempt from professional honesty standards
Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator Competitive Urgency Fabrication Recognition Deficit
Negotiation Competitive Urgency Fabrication Prohibition Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that manufacturing false competitive urgency by invoking Engineer C's lapsed interest constituted an ethical violation under professional codes prohibiting deceptive statements
The Board found Engineer A's comments were artfully misleading and intended to move negotiations off dead center through false competitive urgency
Using Engineer C's definitively withdrawn interest to pressure Engineer B into accelerating the acquisition decision, treating this as a permissible negotiation tactic rather than an ethical violation
Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator Full Circumstance Disclosure Defense Failure
Full Circumstance Disclosure Conditional Defense Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that fully disclosing all circumstances relating to Engineer C — including her definitive withdrawal — would have constituted a complete ethical defense, and that his failure to do so was the operative ethical violation
The BER explicitly stated that full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances would have changed the Board's conclusion, making this the pivotal capability failure
Allowing Engineer C's prior expression of interest to create a false impression of ongoing competitive pressure rather than disclosing her definitive withdrawal, thereby forfeiting the full-disclosure defense
Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator Material Harm Heightened Honesty Recognition Deficit
Negotiation Material Harm Heightened Honesty Self-Activation Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that the potential material harm to Engineer B from his misleading statements about Engineer C's competitive interest required heightened honesty and full disclosure of all circumstances
The Board noted that the facts suggested potential material harm to an interested party during negotiations, which elevated Engineer A's honesty obligations
Failing to disclose that Engineer C had definitively withdrawn, despite the material financial harm that Engineer B could suffer from making an accelerated acquisition decision based on false competitive urgency
Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator Withdrawn Competitor Disclosure Deficit
Withdrawn Competitor Status Accurate Disclosure Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to accurately disclose Engineer C's withdrawn status to Engineer B, instead allowing a lapsed expression of interest to create false competitive urgency
Engineer A's failure to disclose Engineer C's withdrawal was the central factual basis for the Board's finding of ethical violation
Stating 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better make up your mind' when Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Engineer B that Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary, rather than allowing Engineer C's prior expression of interest to create a false impression of ongoing competitive pressure
Engineer A Firm Sale Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition Deficit
Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that his statement about Engineer C's interest — while technically referencing a prior expression of interest — was materially misleading because it omitted the critical context that Engineer C had definitively withdrawn, creating a false impression of ongoing competitive pressure
Engineer A's statement exploited the technical truth of Engineer C's prior interest while omitting the material fact of her withdrawal, constituting an artfully misleading statement
Making the statement 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' which was technically grounded in a prior expression of interest but omitted Engineer C's definitive withdrawal, thereby creating a false impression
Engineer A Firm Sale Third-Party Reputation Non-Impairment Deficit
Third-Party Reputation Non-Impairment in Business Negotiation Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that misrepresenting Engineer C's position and interest in the transaction implicated Engineer C's professional reputation and collegial standing
Engineer A's misrepresentation of Engineer C's status implicated Engineer C's professional standing as a third party not present in the negotiation
Misrepresenting Engineer C's withdrawn status in negotiations without regard for the effect on Engineer C's professional reputation and collegial relationships
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting Engineer C's position and status in the negotiation, as doing so implicated Engineer C's professional reputation and collegial standing
Engineer A Misrepresents Competitor Interest
chief negotiator / seller's representative
Engineer B would make a materially influenced decision based on false competitive pressure
If discovered, Engineer A's professional reputation and the deal itself could be damaged
Do not mislead through omission or artful framing
Integrity in professional communications
Create artificial urgency to pressure Engineer B into advancing or finalizing the deal
Ethical judgment in high-stakes commercial dealings
During stalled negotiations with Engineer B
Duty to be forthcoming with information material to the negotiation
Duty to be honest and truthful in professional dealings
NSPE Code obligation against deceptive statements in professional contexts
Obligation not to mislead clients or colleagues through selective omission
Engineer A deliberately invoked Engineer C's outdated and definitively withdrawn interest as though it represented active, current competition for the subsidiary, telling Engineer B that 'another company has expressed an interest' without disclosing that Engineer C had conclusively decided not to purchase. This was the central ethically impermissible action in the case, constituting a misleading statement of material fact during a business negotiation.
Engineer A Misrepresents Competitor Interest → Board Concludes Conduct Impermissible
Engineer A's deliberate invocation of Engineer C's outdated and definitively withdrawn interest as though it were current and active was the primary factual predicate upon which the NSPE Board reached its formal conclusion that the statement was misleading and ethically impermissible
Had Engineer A accurately represented Engineer C's interest as withdrawn, or disclosed its staleness with appropriate qualification, the Board would have had no factual basis for finding an ethical violation; the conclusion of impermissibility would not have occurred
Applicable precedent providing the normative standard of impermissibility
Engineer A's deliberate and knowing misrepresentation of stale interest as current
NSPE Board jurisdiction over Engineer A's professional conduct
NSPE ethical standards requiring honesty and prohibiting misleading statements
The factual falsity of the representation (Engineer C had definitively withdrawn)
Engineer A's deliberate misrepresentation + knowledge of its falsity + NSPE jurisdiction was sufficient to produce the impermissibility conclusion
The deliberate nature of the act (as opposed to negligent error) made the sufficient set complete without requiring additional aggravating factors
Engineer A Misrepresents Competitor Interest → NSPE Board Reviews Conduct
Engineer A deliberately invoked Engineer C's outdated and definitively withdrawn interest as though it were current and active, triggering formal ethical review by the NSPE Board against established precedent
Had Engineer A accurately represented Engineer C's withdrawn interest, or disclosed its staleness, no ethical violation would have occurred and Board review would not have been warranted
A complaint or referral mechanism bringing the conduct to the Board's attention
Engineer A's deliberate invocation of stale, withdrawn interest as current
Engineer C's prior withdrawal making the representation factually false
The existence of NSPE ethical standards governing honesty and misrepresentation
The combination of deliberate misrepresentation + NSPE jurisdiction + referral to the Board was sufficient to trigger formal review
The misrepresentation's deliberate nature distinguished it from innocent error, making Board review appropriate
Engineer A Negotiation Competitive Urgency Fabrication Prohibition Recognition Failure
Engineer A failed to recognize that using Engineer C's lapsed interest to manufacture competitive urgency in negotiations with Engineer B crossed from permissible negotiating persuasion into prohibited misrepresentation under professional ethics codes.
Engineer A wanted to move negotiations forward and used what appeared to be competitive pressure — but was in fact a misrepresentation of a definitively withdrawn interest — to pressure Engineer B.
Engineer A's deliberate invocation of Engineer C's withdrawn interest as a pressure tactic to accelerate stalled negotiations, motivated by the legitimate but insufficient goal of closing the deal.
Engineer A Technically True Misleading Omission in Business Negotiation
Engineer A's statement referenced Engineer C's past interest using present-tense framing ('has expressed') without disclosing that Engineer C had definitively withdrawn, exploiting literal truth to create a false impression.
Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A's statement that 'Another company has expressed an interest' was technically true in a narrow historical sense — Engineer C had expressed interest — but was materially misleading by omission of the material fact that Engineer C had definitively withdrawn, and Engineer A was constrained from exploiting this literal truth to create a false impression of current competitive urgency.
NSPE Code of Ethics — non-deception provisions; BER precedent on artfully misleading statements
At the time of the negotiation statement
Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary
Engineer A Technically True Misleading Statement Avoidance Failure in Negotiation
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the statement about another company's interest, while technically referencing a real prior expression of interest, was materially misleading because it omitted the critical context that Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary.
In stalled acquisition negotiations for an engineering subsidiary, Engineer A invoked past interest as present competitive pressure without disclosing the material change in Engineer C's position.
The statement 'Another company has expressed an interest' was technically grounded in Engineer C's prior expression of interest but omitted the decisive fact of withdrawal, creating a false impression of active competition.
Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
Engineer A Third-Party Reputation Non-Impairment Failure Regarding Engineer C
Engineer A failed to recognize that misrepresenting Engineer C's position in the negotiation — implying she was an active competing buyer when she had definitively withdrawn — implicated Engineer C's professional reputation and collegial standing without her knowledge or consent.
Engineer C was an absent third party whose prior expression of interest was misrepresented by Engineer A in negotiations with Engineer B, implicating Engineer C's professional reputation without her participation.
Engineer A's use of Engineer C's name and prior interest in a manner that mischaracterized her business decision, potentially affecting how Engineer B perceived Engineer C's judgment and reliability as a professional.
Engineer A Withdrawn Competitor Status Accurate Disclosure Failure
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to accurately disclose Engineer C's definitively withdrawn status, instead allowing Engineer C's prior expression of interest to stand as an implied active competitive threat to Engineer B.
As chief negotiator in the engineering subsidiary sale, Engineer A possessed knowledge of Engineer C's withdrawal but did not disclose it, instead using the prior interest to manufacture urgency.
Engineer A's failure to inform Engineer B that Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary, despite knowing this material fact at the time of the statement.
Engineer A and Engineer B negotiations after Engineer C's withdrawn interest
Engineer C had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but following consideration, Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested... Engineer A is acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer B
Engineer B Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'negotiation_status': 'Active prospective buyer, stalling', 'position': 'Subject of deceptive pressure tactic'}
Prospective buyer of the engineering subsidiary who has been stalling negotiations; is the target of Engineer A's deceptive statement about competing interest, intended to pressure Engineer B into accelerating the acquisition decision.
{'type': 'deceived_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator'}
{'type': 'negotiating_counterparty', 'target': 'Engineer A Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator'}
Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer
Engineer A is acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer B
Engineer B Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer Deception Recognition Capability Instance
Engineer B, as the prospective buyer, would benefit from the capability to recognize that the competitive urgency statement made by Engineer A may be artfully misleading rather than an accurate representation of the competitive landscape.
Engineer B was the prospective buyer of the engineering subsidiary who received the artfully misleading statement and was pressured to accelerate negotiations based on false competitive urgency.
Engineer B's position as the target of Engineer A's misleading statement about Engineer C's interest, where recognizing the potential for misrepresentation would protect Engineer B's negotiating interests.
prospective buyer / chief negotiator for buyer
Seller may use pressure tactics in response to stalling
Exercise of legitimate negotiating discretion
Good faith in professional business dealings
Respect for counterparty's time and resources
Gain additional time, potentially improve negotiating position, or defer commitment without formally withdrawing
Financial and operational assessment of subsidiary
During active negotiations with Engineer A
Good faith negotiation obligation if stalling was designed to extract unfair advantage rather than reflect genuine deliberation
Engineer B, as the prospective buyer, chose to delay and stall the negotiation process rather than advance toward a deal or formally withdraw, creating the pressure dynamic that Engineer A later sought to resolve through a misleading statement. This deliberate delay set the conditions for Engineer A's ethical violation.
Engineer B Stalls Negotiations → Negotiations Enter Stalled State
Engineer B, as the prospective buyer, chose to delay and stall the negotiation process rather than advance it, directly producing the impasse between Engineer A and Engineer B
Had Engineer B negotiated in good faith and without deliberate delay, the stalled state would not have occurred, and Engineer A would have lacked the situational pressure that preceded the misrepresentation
An active negotiation context that could be disrupted by delay
Engineer A's continued participation as seller, making the stall bilateral in effect
Engineer B's volitional decision to delay rather than advance negotiations
Engineer B's deliberate stalling behavior alone was sufficient to produce the stalled negotiation state
No cooperation from Engineer A was required to produce the impasse once Engineer B chose delay
Engineer B's stalling before Engineer A's misleading statement to Engineer B
Engineer A wants to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal but Engineer B has been stalling... In an effort to move the negotiations forward... Engineer A tells Engineer B...
Engineer A's misleading statement to Engineer B
Her expressed interest could be referenced later by the seller in other negotiations
Honest communication of professional intent
Transparency with counterparty about interest level
Signal genuine exploratory interest in acquiring the subsidiary to the seller
Early stage, prior to Engineer B negotiations
Engineer C voluntarily communicated preliminary interest in purchasing the engineering subsidiary, initiating her involvement in the potential transaction. This expression of interest later became the basis for Engineer A's misleading statement.
Engineer C's interest transitions from a true material fact to a false one if represented as current; any subsequent reference to it as active becomes factually inaccurate and potentially deceptive
Upon Engineer C's definitive withdrawal, prior to Engineer A's misrepresentation
Engineer C's previously expressed interest in the subsidiary became factually obsolete and misleading as a representation of current market conditions once Engineer C definitively withdrew from consideration.
Engineer C Withdrawn Engineering Acquisition Prospect
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'acquisition_status': 'Definitively withdrawn', 'gender': 'Female (she/her)', 'role_in_deception': 'Passive subject — prior interest misrepresented as current'}
Initially expressed interest in acquiring the subsidiary but definitively decided not to purchase it; her withdrawn interest is nonetheless misrepresented by Engineer A to Engineer B as active competing interest, forming the basis of the ethical violation.
{'type': 'misrepresented_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator'}
{'type': 'no_active_negotiation_with', 'target': 'Engineer B Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer'}
Withdrawn Engineering Acquisition Prospect
referring to Engineer C's earlier interest, Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary'
Her withdrawal, if not disclosed, could be misrepresented by the seller to other parties
Honest and timely communication of changed professional intent
Professional integrity in business dealings
Respect for counterparty's planning needs
Remove herself from the transaction after concluding the acquisition did not align with her interests
Professional communication of changed position
Before negotiations between Engineer A and Engineer B stalled
After deliberate consideration, Engineer C definitively decided she was not interested in purchasing the subsidiary and withdrew from any potential transaction. This decision transformed her prior expressed interest into a materially outdated and no longer actionable fact.
Engineer C Withdraws Purchase Interest → Engineer C Interest Becomes Stale
Engineer C definitively decided she was not interested in purchasing, rendering her previously expressed interest factually obsolete and misleading if subsequently invoked
Had Engineer C never withdrawn her interest, or had she reaffirmed it, the interest would have remained current and factually accurate; the staleness event would not have occurred
Engineer C's deliberate and definitive withdrawal of that interest
Engineer C's prior expression of interest (which created the interest record)
Passage of time between withdrawal and any subsequent reference to original interest
Combination of withdrawal + continued negotiation context made staleness materially significant
Definitive withdrawal alone was sufficient to render the original interest stale
Engineer C's definitive decision not to purchase before Engineer A's statement to Engineer B referencing Engineer C's interest
Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary. In an effort to move the negotiations forward, referring to Engineer C's earlier interest, Engineer A tells Engineer B...
Engineer C's definitive decision not to purchase
Engineer A's statement to Engineer B referencing Engineer C's interest
Engineer C's initial interest in buying the subsidiary before Engineer C's definitive decision not to purchase
Engineer C had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but following consideration, Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary
Engineer C's initial interest in buying the subsidiary
Engineer Doe BER 72-11 Resume Selective Emphasis Permissibility Assessment
Resume Selective Emphasis vs. Misrepresentation Boundary Discrimination Capability
Engineer Doe exercised the capability to craft a resume that emphasized minor managerial experience for a managerial role in a manner the Board found to be permissible selective emphasis rather than impermissible misrepresentation
BER 72-11: Aerospace engineer laid off after 12 years rewrote resume to emphasize minor managerial experience on employment counselor's advice; Board found no ethics violation
Rewriting resume to emphasize minor managerial and administrative experience while downplaying technical design expertise, resulting in the Board's finding that this constituted permissible emphasis rather than exaggeration
Engineer Doe (BER 72-11 Resume Job-Seeker)
Doe devised a new resume, which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility.
job-seeking engineer, BER Case No. 72-11
Prospective employer might have incomplete picture of his primary expertise area
Risk of being placed in role misaligned with deepest competencies
Acted within accepted norms of resume presentation emphasis
Did not fabricate experience; all represented experience was real
Acceptable sales-oriented emphasis of genuine strengths
Honesty in communications with prospective employers
Truthfulness in professional representations
Secure employment in management and administration after prolonged unemployment by presenting his experience in a more favorable light for those roles
Resume writing and professional self-presentation
Post-case review context; 1972 precedent case referenced in discussion
Engineer John Doe deliberately restructured his resume to emphasize minor managerial and administrative experience while downplaying his primary technical design background, in order to qualify for management-track positions he had been repeatedly denied. The NSPE Board reviewed this as a precedent case and deemed it acceptable as emphasis rather than deception.
Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer Engineer B
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'status': 'Active prospective buyer in negotiation'}
The prospective purchaser of the engineering firm or subsidiary who received artfully misleading statements from Engineer A during acquisition negotiations, and to whom full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances was owed.
{'type': 'affected_by_concealment_of', 'target': 'Engineer C Withdrawn Engineering Acquisition Prospect'}
{'type': 'negotiating_with', 'target': 'Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator'}
Engineer A's comments to Engineer B, were misleading
artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with potential purchaser
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering ethics consensus
Professional Standard Prohibiting Misrepresentation in Engineering Business Negotiations
Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested' — Engineer C had decided she was 'definitely not interested'
Engineer A (as obligation bearer in negotiation role)
Directly applicable to Engineer A's false statement that 'another company has expressed an interest' when Engineer C had definitively withdrawn — establishing that engineers must not make deceptive or misleading statements to gain negotiating leverage
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' — implicating NSPE Code honesty and truthfulness obligations when Engineer C had definitively withdrawn interest
Engineer A (as obligation bearer); BER (as analytical framework)
Primary normative authority establishing the obligation of engineers to be truthful and not engage in deceptive or misleading statements, applicable to Engineer A's misrepresentation of Engineer C's interest during subsidiary sale negotiations
Engineer A's conduct moves from a private professional matter to a subject of formal institutional ethical scrutiny; precedent cases activated as analytical framework
After Engineer A's misrepresentation; retrospective review phase
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review formally examined Engineer A's conduct against established precedent cases (BER 72-11 and BER 86-6), constituting an institutional ethical review triggered by the submission of the case.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Honesty and Truthfulness Obligations
National Society of Professional Engineers
The purpose of the language in the Code (in this context) is 'to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them.'
Cited as the primary normative authority establishing engineers' obligations to be honest, truthful, and forthcoming in professional dealings, including business negotiations; the Board invokes its language on deception and misrepresentation to evaluate Engineer A's misleading statements to Engineer B
Negotiation momentum halted; seller's representative (Engineer A) placed under pressure to revive talks; conditions created that tempt unethical acceleration tactics
During active negotiation phase, after Engineer C's withdrawal and before Engineer A's misrepresentation
The negotiations between Engineer A and Engineer B reached an impasse after Engineer B began deliberately delaying progress, creating a stalled negotiation state that threatened the transaction's completion.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review; professional ethics consensus
Personal Misconduct Ethics Standard — Application to Business Conduct
Engineer A's misrepresentation in a business negotiation context — not direct engineering practice but still subject to professional ethics norms
BER (as supporting analytical framework)
Supports the principle that Engineer A's deceptive negotiation conduct, though occurring in a business/commercial context rather than direct engineering practice, nonetheless falls within the scope of professional ethics obligations because it undermines public confidence in the integrity and honesty of professional engineers
Prior case holdings on engineer honesty become operative analytical tools; the scope of honesty obligations is implicitly extended from resume/publication contexts to negotiation contexts
During NSPE Board review process, concurrent with board deliberation
Cases BER 72-11 (1972) and BER 86-6 (1986) were invoked as binding or persuasive precedent by the NSPE Board, creating an analytical framework that connected prior engineer honesty violations to Engineer A's conduct.
Precedent Cases Activated As Framework → Board Concludes Conduct Impermissible
Cases BER 72-11 (1972) and BER 86-6 (1986) were invoked as binding or persuasive precedent by the NSPE Board, providing the normative framework through which Engineer A's conduct was evaluated and found ethically impermissible
Without applicable precedent, the Board's conclusion would have required first-principles reasoning and might have been less certain; however, the underlying ethical violation would still have existed under general NSPE honesty standards
Applicability of those precedents to Engineer A's specific conduct
Engineer A's conduct being sufficiently analogous to prior cases to warrant the same conclusion
Existence of prior NSPE precedent cases establishing standards for honesty and misrepresentation
NSPE Board's authority and willingness to apply precedent to current facts
BER 86-6's precedent on implying false representations was particularly sufficient as an analogical foundation
The combination of Engineer A's deliberate misrepresentation + directly applicable precedent (BER 86-6 on resume/representation honesty) + Board jurisdiction was sufficient to produce the impermissibility conclusion
Qualification Representation Standard — Resume Accuracy
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning
Applied in the BER 72-11 and BER 86-6 precedents to evaluate the boundary between permissible emphasis and deceptive misrepresentation of qualifications on engineering resumes; provides the normative framework for assessing honest representation of experience and credentials
Was it ethical for Engineer A to make the statement to Engineer B in an effort to move the negotiations forward?
Does Engineer A's statement harm Engineer C's professional reputation or interests by implying she is an active competing buyer when she has definitively withdrawn, and does Engineer A bear an independent ethical duty not to misrepresent a third-party engineer's position without her knowledge or consent?
Would Engineer A's statement become ethically permissible if, instead of omitting Engineer C's withdrawal, Engineer A had fully disclosed that the prior interest was no longer active — and does the availability of that truthful alternative make the choice to mislead more culpable?
To what extent does Engineer B's stalling behavior — which created the pressure Engineer A sought to relieve — mitigate or entirely fail to justify Engineer A's decision to use a misleading statement, and should the Board have addressed whether negotiation bad faith by one party alters the ethical calculus for the other?
Does the fact that Engineer A's statement was technically grounded in a real prior event — Engineer C's initial interest — create a meaningful ethical distinction from a wholly fabricated competing buyer, or does the deliberate omission of Engineer C's withdrawal render the two scenarios morally equivalent?
Does the principle that engineers are not exempt from honesty obligations in business negotiations conflict with any implicit professional norm that permits negotiators to use strategic ambiguity or selective emphasis to advance a legitimate commercial interest — and if so, how does the engineering profession's dual identity as both a business and a learned profession resolve that tension?
BER Case 72-11 established that selective emphasis in a resume can be permissible, while BER Case 86-6 found that implying sole credit for team work crosses into misrepresentation — does the present case sit closer to the permissible selective emphasis pole or the impermissible implied misrepresentation pole, and what criterion definitively separates them across all three cases?
Does the principle that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark engineering qualities — owed to the public, employers, clients, and colleagues — conflict with any duty Engineer A may have as a fiduciary or agent of the selling firm to advance the firm's commercial interests, and if those duties conflict, which must yield?
Does the principle requiring full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances as a conditional defense to Engineer A's statement tension with the principle of professional accountability — specifically, could a sufficiently complete disclosure have transformed the statement into an ethical one, or does the act of invoking a withdrawn party's interest to manufacture urgency remain inherently deceptive regardless of any accompanying disclosure?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a categorical duty of honesty by crafting a statement that was technically true in its reference to Engineer C's earlier interest but deliberately omitted the material fact that Engineer C had definitively withdrawn from consideration, thereby treating Engineer B as a means to a commercial end rather than as a rational agent entitled to accurate information?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the potential benefit of accelerating a stalled commercial negotiation justify the harm caused by Engineer A's misleading statement, particularly given that Engineer B could have made a materially different financial or strategic decision based on a false belief that competitive pressure existed, and that the professional credibility of engineering as a trustworthy discipline could be eroded if such negotiation tactics were normalized?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the character traits of honesty, integrity, and professional trustworthiness that the NSPE Code identifies as hallmarks of engineering conduct, or did the decision to deploy an artfully misleading statement reveal a disposition to subordinate professional character to commercial expediency, and how does this disposition compare to the conduct examined in BER Cases 72-11 and 86-6 as a pattern of professional character failure?
From a deontological perspective, does the fact that Engineer A's statement referenced a real prior event — Engineer C's initial interest — provide any morally relevant distinction from an outright fabrication, or does the deliberate omission of Engineer C's definitive withdrawal constitute a form of deception that violates the same categorical duty of non-deception regardless of the technical truth-value of the words spoken, particularly under NSPE provisions prohibiting statements containing material omissions?
Would Engineer A's statement have been ethically permissible if, instead of implying active competing interest, Engineer A had fully disclosed the circumstances by saying something such as 'Another party expressed interest earlier but has since decided not to proceed — I mention this only to note that external interest has existed,' thereby satisfying the conditional defense of full circumstance disclosure identified in the Board's analysis?
What if Engineer B had made a significantly worse financial decision — such as overpaying for the subsidiary or forgoing a superior acquisition opportunity — in direct reliance on Engineer A's misleading statement about competing interest: would the materialization of concrete financial harm have changed the Board's ethical analysis, or does the NSPE framework treat the deceptive act itself as the ethical violation independent of whether actual harm to Engineer B resulted?
What if Engineer A had sought and obtained Engineer C's explicit permission to disclose that Engineer C had previously expressed interest — without revealing that Engineer C had withdrawn — before making the statement to Engineer B: would that consent from Engineer C have altered the ethical standing of the statement, or would the resulting impression still constitute a material misrepresentation because Engineer B would still be led to believe active competing interest existed?
What if Engineer B had been the one to introduce the topic of competing buyers by asking Engineer A directly whether any other parties were interested in the subsidiary: would Engineer A's obligation to provide an accurate and complete answer have been stronger, equal to, or weaker than the obligation that arose from Engineer A volunteering the misleading statement unprompted, and does the NSPE Code distinguish between deception by spontaneous assertion and deception by misleading response to a direct inquiry?
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
The professional dimension of the engineering identity governs even in business contexts; commercial negotiation norms do not override professional ethics codes for licensed engineers
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.89
Engineer A was prohibited from telling Engineer B that 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer A knew that Engineer C — the only company that had expressed interest — had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary, because this statement, while technically referencing a past fact, was structured to create the materially false impression that active competing interest currently existed.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
The professional honesty obligation overrides the business interest in accelerating negotiations; the competitive business context does not suspend the engineer's ethical duty of non-deception
The Board resolves apparent tension between the three cases by identifying the material factual differences: (1) genuine emphasis vs. obscuring collaborative truth vs. artful misleading in negotiation; (2) absence vs. presence of intent to deceive; (3) absence vs. presence of material harm to the recipient's decision-making
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The Board distinguishes this from Doe's case by the presence of intentional obscuring of collaborative truth, which crosses the threshold from permissible sales-technique emphasis to impermissible misrepresentation
Engineer A was constrained from implying on his resume submitted to Employer Y that he was personally and solely responsible for the design of patented products that were in fact designed through the joint effort of a six-engineer team at Employer X.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
The obligation to accurately represent team contributions overrides the competitive incentive to maximize apparent individual achievement on a resume
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
Honesty obligation prevails; the desire to close the business deal does not justify deceptive communications even when the literal words are defensible
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
Engineer A was prohibited from invoking Engineer B's stalling behavior as justification for misrepresenting the competitive landscape by implying Engineer C remained an active interested buyer, because the pressure of a stalled negotiation and the legitimate business interest in closing the transaction do not suspend the professional duty of honesty and non-deception.
The Board uses the availability of full disclosure as the counterfactual test for the ethical violation: had Engineer A disclosed fully, no violation; having withheld, the violation is confirmed
The Board holds that the commercial negotiation context does not relax professional honesty standards; the violation is confirmed by the Board's statement that full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances would have changed the conclusion
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
Engineer A was constrained from invoking the stalled or slow-moving nature of the negotiation with Engineer B — who was deliberately delaying — as justification for misrepresenting Engineer C's current interest status, establishing that the pressure of a stalled negotiation does not relax the duty of honesty.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
Engineer A was subject to a heightened honesty constraint arising from the potential material harm his misleading statements about Engineer C's interest could cause to Engineer B — the prospective purchaser — who might enter into or accelerate a transaction on the basis of false competitive urgency, thereby suffering material financial harm.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
Engineer A was prohibited from representing Engineer C as an active or interested competing buyer after Engineer C had definitively withdrawn from consideration, because doing so constituted an unauthorized and misleading use of Engineer C's professional status and prior expressed interest in a manner that implicated Engineer C's professional position without consent and deceived Engineer B about the actual competitive landscape.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
The Board resolves the tension by focusing on the purpose of the honesty provision — protecting employers from competence deception — and finding that Doe's emphasis, while selective, did not cross that threshold
invokedby: Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresenter
invokedby: Engineer A Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator
invokedby: Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiator
invokedby: Engineer Doe Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeker
Engineer A (BER 86-6) submitted a resume to Employer Y implying sole credit for patented products that were jointly designed by a six-person team of equal-rank engineers, misrepresenting individual contribution through selective framing
Engineer A (BER 86-6) misrepresented his role and contribution to jointly designed patented products by implying sole authorship on his resume, misleading Employer Y about the nature and scope of his individual professional achievement
The Board affirms that honesty and truthfulness are foundational professional virtues for all practicing engineers, governing all professional dealings including business negotiations, resume presentations, and communications with colleague
Engineer A's resume implied personal sole responsibility for products that were jointly designed by a six-person team, crossing from permissible emphasis into impermissible misrepresentation because the implication was intentionally designe
Engineer A exploited Engineer C's past (but definitively withdrawn) interest in the subsidiary by framing it as present active competition, using a technically accurate statement to create a materially false impression of urgency and compet
Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer acting as chief negotiator, remains accountable under professional ethics standards for the honesty of representations made during the subsidiary sale negotiation, and cannot shield deceptive
Engineer A's statement to Engineer B violated the honesty principle by creating a false impression of active competing interest from Engineer C, who had definitively withdrawn from consideration, in order to pressure Engineer B into acceler
The Board explicitly states that if Engineer A had fully disclosed all circumstances relating to Engineer C — including that her interest had been definitively withdrawn — the Board's ethical conclusion would have been different; the failur
Engineer A's comments to Engineer B during acquisition negotiations about Engineer C's interest were artfully misleading — exploiting Engineer C's prior (but withdrawn) interest to create a false impression of competitive pressure — and mer
Engineer A's deceptive negotiation tactic — misrepresenting the competitive landscape to pressure Engineer B — occurred in a commercial business transaction (firm acquisition), not a technical engineering context; the case establishes that
Engineer A's attempt to use a misleading statement about Engineer C to accelerate stalled acquisition negotiations demonstrates that the competitive and adversarial character of business negotiations does not suspend the professional engine
Engineer Doe's rewriting of his resume to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay technical expertise was condoned by the Board as a permissible 'degree of emphasis' rather than an impermissible exaggeration, because the purpose
Engineer Doe rewrote his resume after layoff to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay his dominant engineering background, creating a misleading impression of his qualifications for management positions he had not substantively
Engineer A was obligated to limit his claims of credit for the patented products designed at Employer X to his specific personal contribution as one of six equal-rank team members, and to refrain from claiming or implying undifferentiated o
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting his qualifications by implying sole authorship of jointly designed patented products on his resume submitted to Employer Y, and violated this obligation through intentional framing de
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting the competitive landscape — specifically, from implying Engineer C was an active competing buyer — as a pressure tactic to accelerate Engineer B's decision, recognizing that professio
Engineer A was obligated to fully disclose all circumstances relating to Engineer C — including that Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary — when referencing Engineer C's interest during negotiations with Engine
Engineer Doe was obligated to remain within the permissible boundary of resume emphasis — highlighting genuine managerial experience without deceiving the prospective employer about his actual competence for the managerial role sought — and
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from implying on his resume submitted to Employer Y that he was personally and solely responsible for the design of patented products that were in fact jointly designed by a six-person team of equal-rank
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting Engineer C's position and status in the negotiation, as doing so implicated Engineer C's professional reputation and autonomy by falsely characterizing her as an active competing part
Engineer A was obligated not to deceive Engineer B — the prospective buyer — by creating a false impression of competitive urgency, as Engineer B was entitled to make an informed acquisition decision based on accurate information about the
Engineer A was obligated to exercise heightened honesty in his representations to Engineer B given that his misleading statements about Engineer C's interest had the potential to cause material harm to Engineer B — a prospective buyer who c
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Engineer B that Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary, rather than allowing Engineer B to believe Engineer C remained an active competing buyer.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making the statement 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested,' knowing that Engineer C's interest had been definitive
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making artfully misleading statements to Engineer B during acquisition negotiations — specifically, to refrain from framing Engineer C's definitively withdrawn interest as though it remained active c
Engineer A was obligated to maintain the same standard of honesty and truthfulness in commercial business negotiations as in all other professional dealings, recognizing that the business context of a firm acquisition does not exempt him fr
Engineer A was one of six equal-rank staff engineers who jointly designed patented products at Employer X; his resume to Employer Y implied personal sole responsibility for those designs without explicitly stating it.
Team-Designed Work Implied Sole Authorship Resume Prohibition Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-Deception and Truthfulness provisions; BER Case No. 86-6
At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
Such statements, said the Board, are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
Engineer B was stalling the negotiation, creating commercial pressure on Engineer A; Engineer A responded by making a misleading statement about Engineer C's interest to accelerate the negotiation, which the Board found ethically impermissible.
Negotiation Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation Constraint
During the stalled business negotiation between Engineer A and Engineer B
Engineer A Business Negotiation Artfully Misleading Statement About Engineer C Interest
Engineer A, acting as chief negotiator for the sale of an engineering subsidiary, made a statement to prospective buyer Engineer B implying active competing interest from Engineer C, when Engineer C had definitively withdrawn from consideration.
NSPE Code of Ethics — provisions on truthfulness, non-deception, and non-misleading statements in professional dealings; BER precedent on misrepresentation in business contexts
At the time of the negotiation statement to Engineer B
Engineer A Negotiation Stalling Non-Justification for Competitive Misrepresentation
Engineer A faced a stalled negotiation with Engineer B and, in an effort to move negotiations forward, made a misleading statement about Engineer C's interest to create false competitive urgency.
NSPE Code of Ethics — provisions on truthfulness and non-deception in professional dealings; BER precedent on misrepresentation in business dealings
Engineer A wants to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal but Engineer B has been stalling.
Throughout the negotiation period in which Engineer B was stalling
Engineer A Unauthorized Misrepresentation of Engineer C Withdrawn Negotiation Status
Engineer C had expressed initial interest but definitively withdrew. Engineer A nonetheless referenced Engineer C's prior interest to Engineer B as if it were current, implicating Engineer C's professional status without consent.
NSPE Code of Ethics — provisions on truthfulness, non-deception, and collegial obligations to other engineers
After Engineer C definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary
Doe Resume Emphasis Reframing - BER 72-11
From Doe's decision to rewrite resume through obtaining new employment
Doe devised a new resume, which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function
Resume Experience Emphasis Reframing State
Engineer Doe's professional self-presentation during job search
Doe obtaining new employment in his general field of technical expertise
we are inclined to the more charitable view that his action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration'
Employment counselor advice that only managerial/administrative positions were viable; repeated rejections based on technical-only resume
Engineer A Ethical Dilemma in Negotiation
From the point Engineer A considers how to overcome Engineer B's stalling through the act of misrepresentation
Engineer A wants to move the negotiations forward
Engineer A's choice between advancing a legitimate business goal and maintaining professional honesty
Resolution through honest or dishonest means
Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary'
Tension between Engineer A's duty to advance the subsidiary sale and the obligation not to deceive Engineer B
Engineer A Implied Sole Credit - BER 86-6
From submission of resume to Employer Y through discovery of the misrepresentation
Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint effort
Implied Sole Credit Misrepresentation State
Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
Board review and finding of ethical violation
Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer
Engineer A submitting resume implying sole responsibility for team-designed patented products
Engineer A Misleading Negotiation Statements - Present Case
During the business negotiation between Engineer A and Engineer B
Engineer A's comments were artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with potential purchaser intended to move discussions off 'dead center'
False Urgency Misrepresentation in Negotiation State
Engineer A's statements to Engineer B during business negotiation
Board review; full disclosure of Engineer C circumstances not made
if Engineer A had fully disclosed the full circumstances relating to Engineer C, the Board's conclusion would have been different
Negotiations reaching a stalled or slow-moving state prompting Engineer A to make artfully misleading comments
Engineer B Stalling Creating Negotiation Pressure
From the onset of Engineer B's stalling behavior through the triggering of Engineer A's misrepresentation
Engineer A wants to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal but Engineer B has been stalling
Engineer A's negotiation context with Engineer B
Engineer B's decision to proceed or withdraw, or negotiation termination
In an effort to move the negotiations forward
Engineer B's repeated stalling of the acquisition negotiation
Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Invoked In Subsidiary Sale Context
Engineering subsidiary acquisition negotiation between two engineers
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
The subsidiary sale negotiation represents the business dimension of engineering practice; Engineer A's conduct illustrates the tension between commercially motivated negotiation tactics and the professional ethical constraints that continue to govern engineer conduct in business dealings
Engineering practice has both business and professional dimensions; while competitive negotiation is a legitimate business activity, the professional dimension requires that such negotiations be conducted with honesty and integrity, constraining tactics that would be permissible in purely commercial contexts
Engineer A Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator
Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
The professional integrity obligation constrains the business negotiation; Engineer A's deceptive tactic is impermissible despite its commercial rationale
Public Employer Client Colleague Reliance on Engineer Honesty
All professional dealings including negotiations, resume submissions, and colleague communications
The Board grounds the honesty obligation in the reliance that the public, employers, clients, and colleagues place on the professional engineer's integrity — establishing that dishonesty is not merely a personal failing but a breach of the trust relationship that underlies professional engineering practice
Professional accountability here means that the engineer's words and actions are held to account by the full range of stakeholders who rely on them — the engineer is accountable not just to the immediate counterparty but to the profession's reputation for integrity
Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresenter
Engineer Doe Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeker
the public, employers, clients, and colleagues rely upon the honesty and integrity of the professional engineer in professional matters.
No tension — professional accountability reinforces and extends the honesty obligation by grounding it in relational trust
Stalled Negotiation Pressure - Present Case
Prior to and during Engineer A's misleading statements, when negotiations were at 'dead center'
artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with potential purchaser intended to move discussions off 'dead center'
Business negotiation between Engineer A and Engineer B (potential purchaser)
Engineer A's misleading statements (which moved discussions off dead center, but unethically)
Negotiation reaching an impasse or slow-moving state requiring Engineer A to attempt to accelerate
Engineer A's misleading statement about competing buyer interest had the potential to cause Engineer B to make a materially disadvantageous business decision — accelerating or altering the terms of a firm acquisition — based on false information about competitive urgency.
Material Harm Potential Negotiation Heightened Honesty Constraint
NSPE Board of Ethical Review — present case; NSPE Code of Ethics — Honesty and Truthfulness provisions
{'specialty': 'Aerospace engineering design (12 years)', 'career_transition': 'Technical design to management/administration', 'outcome': 'Board found no code violation — permissible emphasis'}
Laid-off aerospace engineer (BER 72-11) who, after failing to find work, rewrote his resume to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay extensive technical design experience in order to obtain a management-track position; Board found this permissible as emphasis rather than deceptive exaggeration.
{'type': 'applying_to', 'target': 'Prospective Aerospace Employer'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Aerospace Company Employer'}
Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
Doe devised a new resume, which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility
Engineer A BER 86-6 Prior Employer Project Credit Scope Violation
Engineer A was one of six equal-rank staff engineers who jointly designed patented products at Employer X; submitted resume to Employer Y implying personal sole responsibility.
Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to limit his claims of credit for the patented products designed at Employer X to his specific personal contribution as one of six equal-rank team members, and to refrain from claiming or implying undifferentiated or sole credit for the full team-designed product portfolio.
At the time of submitting the resume to Employer Y
Engineer A Business Negotiation Honesty Non-Exemption
Acquisition negotiations for the engineering subsidiary
Engineer A's attempt to use a misleading statement about Engineer C to accelerate stalled acquisition negotiations demonstrates that the competitive and adversarial character of business negotiations does not suspend the professional engineer's obligation to be honest and forthcoming
The Board treats the business negotiation context as fully subject to professional ethics standards, rejecting any implicit claim that commercial negotiation tactics excuse deceptive statements
Business Negotiation Non-Exemption from Professional Honesty Obligations
No tension resolution needed — the Board straightforwardly applies professional honesty standards to the negotiation context without qualification
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'conduct': 'Artfully misleading statements during acquisition negotiation', 'violation': 'Failure to fully disclose circumstances relating to Engineer C'}
Made artfully misleading comments to Engineer B (prospective buyer) during business negotiations for the sale of an engineering firm, failing to fully disclose the full circumstances relating to Engineer C in order to move discussions off 'dead center', constituting a material misrepresentation to an interested party.
{'type': 'concealed_information_about', 'target': 'Engineer C Withdrawn Engineering Acquisition Prospect'}
{'type': 'negotiating_with', 'target': 'Engineer B Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer'}
Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer
Engineer A's comments to Engineer B, were misleading and are of a nature that merit the rebuke of the Board
Engineer A Misrepresentation of Engineer C Interest
From the moment Engineer A invokes Engineer C's prior interest as if current, through the conclusion or correction of the negotiation
Engineer C (reputation/interest misrepresented)
Engineer A's statement to Engineer B about competing buyer interest
Correction of the misrepresentation, or conclusion of the negotiation
Engineer A's statement to Engineer B that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' despite knowing Engineer C had definitively withdrawn interest
Engineer A Withdrawn Competitor Status Non-Misrepresentation Collegial Duty
Engineer C had definitively withdrawn her interest in the subsidiary. By referencing her past interest as though it were present and active, Engineer A implicated Engineer C in a competitive dynamic she had consciously chosen to exit, potentially affecting how Engineer B perceived Engineer C's professional judgment and business conduct.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting Engineer C's position and status in the negotiation, as doing so implicated Engineer C's professional reputation and autonomy by falsely characterizing her as an active competing party without her knowledge or consent.
At the time of the misleading statement to Engineer B
Material Harm Potential from Engineer A's Misrepresentation - Present Case
From the point of Engineer A's misleading statements through conclusion of negotiation
The facts of this case suggest potential material harm to an interested party during negotiations
Material Harm Potential in Business Negotiation State
Engineer B's position as counterparty to Engineer A's misleading negotiation statements
Not terminated within the case — full disclosure was not made
Engineer A making artfully misleading statements about Engineer C without full disclosure of circumstances
Resume Selective Emphasis Misrepresentation By Engineer Doe
Job application resume submitted to prospective employers after aerospace industry layoff
Self-Advocacy and Authentic Professional Identity Principle
Engineer Doe rewrote his resume after layoff to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay his dominant engineering background, creating a misleading impression of his qualifications for management positions he had not substantively held
Selectively restructuring a resume to foreground peripheral experience and background dominant experience, in order to appear qualified for a different career track, creates a materially false overall impression even if individual statements are accurate — violating professional honesty obligations
Resume Selective Emphasis Misrepresentation Prohibition
Engineer Doe, after failing to find work, rewrote his resume to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay engineering background
The honesty obligation constrains self-advocacy; engineers may present their qualifications favorably but not in ways that create materially false impressions of their actual experience profile
Three-Case Comparative Precedent Distinguishing Analysis
Board's ethical reasoning process across three honesty-related cases
Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
The Board explicitly acknowledges that BER 72-11 (Doe resume emphasis), BER 86-6 (team credit misrepresentation), and the present case (artfully misleading negotiation statement) are 'different in a variety of ways,' performing a comparative analysis to identify which precedent governs and why the present case merits rebuke while BER 72-11 did not
The Board's explicit distinguishing of the three cases demonstrates the extensional, precedent-based character of professional ethics principles — the same abstract honesty principle generates different outcomes depending on context, intent, and harm
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board is of the view that the two earlier cases and the present case are different in a variety of ways.
Engineer B Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer Deception Non-Commission
Engineer B was the direct recipient of Engineer A's misleading statement and was the party whose decision-making was materially affected by the false impression of active competing interest from Engineer C.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated not to deceive Engineer B — the prospective buyer — by creating a false impression of competitive urgency, as Engineer B was entitled to make an informed acquisition decision based on accurate information about the actual state of third-party interest.
Throughout the negotiation period in which Engineer A communicated with Engineer B
Engineer Doe Resume Emphasis Permissibility Invocation BER 72-11
Resume rewriting to emphasize managerial over technical experience
Engineer Doe's rewriting of his resume to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay technical expertise was condoned by the Board as a permissible 'degree of emphasis' rather than an impermissible exaggeration, because the purpose of the honesty code provision is to protect employers from being deceived as to engineering competence, and Doe's emphasis did not deceive the employer about his ability to perform the managerial role sought
The Board applies a harm-to-employer-decision-making standard: selective emphasis of genuine experience is permissible when it does not trick the employer into entrusting engineering decisions to someone unqualified; it is analogous to a seller emphasizing product virtues
the purpose of the language in the Code (in this context) is 'to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them.'
we are inclined to the more charitable view that his action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis. This is an established and accepted form of sales technique in which the seller proclaims all of the virtues of his product and conveniently ignores its less desirable features.
Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresentation Violation
Resume submitted to Employer Y claiming credit for team-designed patented products
Engineer A's resume implied personal sole responsibility for products that were jointly designed by a six-person team, crossing from permissible emphasis into impermissible misrepresentation because the implication was intentionally designed to obscure the collaborative truth from a prospective employer
Unlike Doe's case, Engineer A did not merely emphasize genuine individual experience but implied sole credit for work that was demonstrably collaborative — the intent to obscure truth distinguishes this as an ethical violation rather than permissible emphasis
Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer. Such statements, said the Board, are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
although Engineer A did not specifically state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer. Such statements, said the Board, are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
Engineer A Firm Sale Negotiation Material Harm Heightened Honesty Violation
Engineer A's misrepresentation of Engineer C's withdrawn interest as active competition could have caused Engineer B to make a materially disadvantaged financial decision in the firm acquisition; the Board explicitly noted the potential for material harm.
Engineer A (present case, firm sale negotiator)
Negotiation Counterparty Material Harm Awareness Heightened Honesty Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to exercise heightened honesty in his representations to Engineer B given that his misleading statements about Engineer C's interest had the potential to cause material harm to Engineer B — a prospective buyer who could be pressured into a financial decision based on a false competitive landscape — and violated this obligation by making artfully misleading statements without full disclosure.
During the business negotiation for the sale of the engineering subsidiary
Honesty and Truthfulness as Hallmark Engineering Qualities
Business negotiation statements about Engineer C
The Board affirms that honesty and truthfulness are foundational professional virtues for all practicing engineers, governing all professional dealings including business negotiations, resume presentations, and communications with colleagues
The Board treats honesty not as a context-specific rule but as a character-level professional virtue — a 'hallmark quality' — that applies across all professional dealings regardless of whether they are technical, commercial, or interpersonal
Honesty as a virtue sets the baseline; contextual permissibility principles determine whether specific conduct falls within or outside its requirements in particular circumstances
Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer A BER 86-6
Professional representations about qualifications and experience must accurately reflect the individual's actual role and contribution; implying sole credit for team work violates the honesty standard applicable to professional credential representations
Engineer A BER 86-6, as one of six equal-rank engineers on a team that jointly designed patented products, submitted a resume to Employer Y implying sole credit for team-designed patented products
Honesty in representations prevails over competitive self-interest in employment seeking
Professional Accountability Invoked For Engineer A Deceptive Negotiation Conduct
Deceptive statement about Engineer C's interest made to Engineer B
Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer acting as chief negotiator, remains accountable under professional ethics standards for the honesty of representations made during the subsidiary sale negotiation, and cannot shield deceptive conduct behind the commercial character of the transaction
Professional accountability means that engineers answer for their conduct under professional ethics standards in all contexts where they act as engineers or in engineering-related capacities, including business transactions involving engineering firms
Professional accountability attaches to the person and role, not merely to the technical practice context
Engineer A BER 86-6 Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Violation
Engineer A submitted a resume to Employer Y implying personal sole responsibility for products jointly designed by a six-person team at Employer X.
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting his qualifications by implying sole authorship of jointly designed patented products on his resume submitted to Employer Y, and violated this obligation through intentional framing designed to obscure the team nature of the work.
Engineer A Withdrawn Competitor Status Accurate Disclosure Negotiation
Engineer A, acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary, referenced Engineer C's earlier interest to Engineer B without disclosing that Engineer C had since conclusively withdrawn that interest, thereby creating a false impression of active competition to pressure Engineer B into accelerating negotiations.
Full Circumstance Disclosure in Professional Negotiations Obligation
At the moment Engineer A chose to reference Engineer C's interest in negotiations with Engineer B — after Engineer C had definitively withdrawn
Resume Selective Emphasis Misrepresentation By Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit
Resume submitted to Employer Y for employment consideration
Claiming or implying sole authorship of team-designed work on a resume constitutes misrepresentation even if the engineer did contribute to the work; the accurate representation must reflect the collaborative nature of the contribution and the equal standing of all team members
Engineer A BER 86-6, as one of six equal-rank engineers on a team that jointly designed patented products, submitted a resume to Employer Y implying sole credit
Business Negotiation Non-Exemption Invoked In Engineer A Subsidiary Sale
Engineering subsidiary acquisition negotiation
Engineer A's deceptive negotiation tactic — misrepresenting the competitive landscape to pressure Engineer B — occurred in a commercial business transaction (firm acquisition), not a technical engineering context; the case establishes that professional ethics obligations are not suspended in such commercial settings
The fact that this deception occurred in a business negotiation rather than in technical engineering practice does not exempt Engineer A from professional ethics obligations; the engineering ethics code applies to all professional dealings, including commercial transactions between engineers
Engineer A Firm Sale Artfully Misleading Statement Violation
Business negotiation statements about Engineer C's interest in acquiring the subsidiary
Full Disclosure as Conditional Ethical Defense Principle
Engineer A's comments to Engineer B during acquisition negotiations about Engineer C's interest were artfully misleading — exploiting Engineer C's prior (but withdrawn) interest to create a false impression of competitive pressure — and merited the Board's rebuke even though the statement may have been technically grounded in a past fact
The Board finds that artful misleading in a business negotiation context violates the same professional honesty obligations as outright falsehood; the intent to move negotiations 'off dead center' through a misleading impression does not excuse the deception
The Board is of the view that Engineer A's comments were artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with potential purchaser intended to move discussions off 'dead center.'
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Competitive Pressure Statement Prohibition
Engineer A used Engineer C's past (but conclusively withdrawn) interest as a negotiating lever, framing it in the present tense to create urgency and competitive pressure on Engineer B. The statement was not an outright falsehood (Engineer C had expressed interest at one point) but was designed to mislead Engineer B into believing active competition existed when none did.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making the statement 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested,' knowing that Engineer C's interest had been definitively withdrawn, because this statement was artfully misleading — technically exploiting a past fact while creating a materially false present impression.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_employer': 'Employer X', 'prospective_employer': 'Employer Y', 'violation': 'Implied sole credit for jointly designed patented products'}
Staff engineer (BER 86-6) who, as one of six equal-rank engineers on a team that jointly designed patented products, submitted a resume to Employer Y implying personal sole responsibility for those team designs; Board found this unethical as an intentional misrepresentation obscuring the truth.
{'type': 'applying_to', 'target': 'Employer Y Hiring Authority'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Employer X'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Five Co-Equal Staff Engineers'}
Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
Engineer A did not specifically state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer
Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Sole Authorship Misrepresentation Violation
Engineer A, one of six equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X, participated in joint design of patented products; submitted resume to Employer Y implying personal sole responsibility for those products.
Resume Team Contribution Sole Authorship Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from implying on his resume submitted to Employer Y that he was personally and solely responsible for the design of patented products that were in fact jointly designed by a six-person team of equal-rank engineers, and violated this obligation by framing his resume in a manner intended to obscure the team nature of the work.
Engineer A Firm Sale Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Violation
Engineer A acting as negotiator in sale of engineering subsidiary to Engineer B; Engineer C had definitively withdrawn interest; Engineer A referenced Engineer C's past interest as though it remained active to pressure Engineer B.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making artfully misleading statements to Engineer B during acquisition negotiations — specifically, to refrain from framing Engineer C's definitively withdrawn interest as though it remained active competitive pressure — and violated this obligation by making comments designed to move negotiations off dead center through a false impression of competitive urgency.
the Board believes that Engineers A's comments to Engineer B, were misleading and are of a nature that merit the rebuke of the Board.
Engineer A Firm Sale Full Circumstance Disclosure Conditional Defense Failure
Engineer A referenced Engineer C's withdrawn interest without disclosing that Engineer C had definitively decided not to proceed; the Board explicitly stated that full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances would have changed the Board's conclusion.
Engineer A was obligated to fully disclose all circumstances relating to Engineer C — including that Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase the subsidiary — when referencing Engineer C's interest during negotiations with Engineer B, and failed to do so, thereby forfeiting the conditional ethical defense that full disclosure would have provided.
At the time Engineer A made statements about Engineer C's interest during negotiations with Engineer B
Full Disclosure of Engineer C Circumstances as Conditional Defense
Engineer A's statements about Engineer C's interest during negotiations with Engineer B
The Board explicitly states that if Engineer A had fully disclosed all circumstances relating to Engineer C — including that her interest had been definitively withdrawn — the Board's ethical conclusion would have been different; the failure to make this available disclosure is what transforms the statement from a potentially ambiguous one into an ethical violation
Full disclosure of Engineer C's withdrawn status would have enabled Engineer B to form an accurate understanding of the competitive landscape; its omission created the materially false impression that constituted the ethical violation; the principle establishes that the cure for a potentially misleading statement is completeness, not silence
Honesty Violated By Engineer A Through Misleading Competitive Representation
Representation of Engineer C's interest status to Engineer B during subsidiary sale negotiation
Engineer A's statement to Engineer B violated the honesty principle by creating a false impression of active competing interest from Engineer C, who had definitively withdrawn from consideration, in order to pressure Engineer B into accelerating the acquisition
Honesty requires not merely avoiding outright falsehoods but ensuring that professional communications do not deliberately mislead; Engineer A's artfully crafted statement failed this standard by exploiting a technically true past fact to imply a false present reality
Technically True But Misleading Statement Invoked By Engineer A In Subsidiary Sale Negotiation
Sale negotiation of engineering subsidiary between Engineer A and Engineer B
Engineer A exploited Engineer C's past (but definitively withdrawn) interest in the subsidiary by framing it as present active competition, using a technically accurate statement to create a materially false impression of urgency and competitive pressure on Engineer B
The statement 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' was literally true — Engineer C had expressed interest — but was deliberately deployed to imply ongoing current competition that Engineer A knew did not exist, because Engineer C had definitively decided not to purchase. This constitutes deception by misleading implication, violating professional honesty obligations regardless of technical accuracy.
Engineer A Firm Sale Business Negotiation Honesty Non-Exemption Violation
Engineer A attempted to use a misleading statement about Engineer C to accelerate stalled acquisition negotiations, treating the commercial business context as though it were outside the scope of professional ethics obligations.
Engineer A was obligated to maintain the same standard of honesty and truthfulness in commercial business negotiations as in all other professional dealings, recognizing that the business context of a firm acquisition does not exempt him from the professional ethics obligations that apply to all engineering conduct.
As a general matter, the public, employers, clients, and colleagues rely upon the honesty and integrity of the professional engineer in professional matters.
Engineer A Business Negotiation Competitive Misrepresentation Prohibition
Engineer A, motivated by the desire to close the subsidiary sale and overcome Engineer B's stalling, deployed a deceptive competitive pressure tactic by misrepresenting Engineer C's withdrawn interest as active. This occurred in a business negotiation context, which Engineer A may have treated as exempt from professional ethics obligations, but which is not.
Business Negotiation Competitive Pressure Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting the competitive landscape — specifically, from implying Engineer C was an active competing buyer — as a pressure tactic to accelerate Engineer B's decision, recognizing that professional honesty obligations are not suspended in commercial business negotiations.
During the subsidiary sale negotiation, after Engineer C's withdrawal was known to Engineer A
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'negotiation_authority': 'Chief negotiator for seller', 'ethical_violation': 'Artfully misleading statement manufacturing false competitive pressure'}
Acts as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer B; attempts to accelerate negotiations by falsely implying Engineer C (who definitively withdrew) still has active interest in purchasing the subsidiary, constituting a deceptive misrepresentation in professional negotiations.
{'type': 'misrepresents_status_of', 'target': 'Engineer C Withdrawn Engineering Acquisition Prospect'}
{'type': 'negotiating_counterparty', 'target': 'Engineer B Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer'}
Engineer A wants to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal
Engineer Doe BER 72-11 Resume Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Compliance
Aerospace engineer laid off after 12 years, advised to seek managerial roles; rewrote resume to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay dominant technical background; obtained new managerial position.
Resume Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to remain within the permissible boundary of resume emphasis — highlighting genuine managerial experience without deceiving the prospective employer about his actual competence for the managerial role sought — and the Board found he did not cross into prohibited misrepresentation because he possessed genuine (if minor) managerial experience and could perform the role.
At the time of crafting and submitting the revised resume for managerial positions