ProEthica Case 145 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.176521
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: U.S. DOE employee and private consultant
foreseen unintended effects: Blurring of independent government expertise with paid industry advocacy
foreseen unintended effects: Conflict of interest between DOE duties and private client advocacy
foreseen unintended effects: Potential breach of government employment trust and policies
guided by principle text: Avoidance of conflict of interest
guided by principle text: Integrity and honesty in professional relationships
guided by principle text: Public protection over private gain
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Supplement government income with consulting fees by leveraging specialized coal bed methane expertise
requires capability text: Coal bed methane technical expertise
requires capability text: Knowledge of professional ethics obligations in dual employment
requires capability text: Understanding of regulatory environment
temporal marker: Prior to the State Y hearing; at the time of retainer agreement
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Faithful agent and trustee obligation to government employer (U.S. DOE)
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid actions that compromise professional integrity or create appearance of impropriety
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest in dual public-private employment
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A accepted a paid consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company while simultaneously employed as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher, establishing a direct conflict of interest between his public and private roles in the same technical domain.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.194812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1) → Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A accepted a paid consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company while simultaneously [holding DOE employment], and it was subsequently revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the State Y hearing was paid for by the [retaining company]
cause: Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A declined the retainer or recused himself from testifying, no financial sponsorship relationship would have existed to be revealed
effect: Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6)
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to accept retainer payment from an interested party
necessary factors: Engineer A's participation in the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
necessary factors: The coal bed methane company's financial interest in the hearing outcome
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Acceptance of retainer + participation in hearing + subsequent public scrutiny = inevitable disclosure of financial sponsorship
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation (Government Employee Context)
type: Agent-TrusteeLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics / BER interpretive tradition
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer
textreferences: the Board indicated that it believed, based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Invoked to establish that Engineer A's simultaneous service as a U.S. DOE employee in the coal bed methane division and as a private consultant in the same domain constitutes a breach of the basic trust owed to his public employer as a faithful agent and trustee
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.182568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER Case 67-1 Precedent Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Pattern_of_Violations_Constraint
activates constraint: Precedent_Awareness_Constraint
causes state change: Ethical standard regarding dual public-private roles enters professional record; the engineering profession is formally on notice that such conduct is problematic; subsequent violations occur against a backdrop of established precedent
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineering_Ethics_Education_on_Dual_Roles
creates obligation: Professional_Community_Awareness_of_Dual_Role_Risks
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Approximately 1967; referenced in Discussion section
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: A prior Board of Ethical Review case from approximately 1967 (Case 67-1) established precedent regarding dual public-private role violations by engineers, providing the first documented instance of the pattern that Engineer A's conduct later replicated and escalated.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER Case No. 02-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 02-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
textreferences: In deciding that it would be unethical for Engineer A to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements... while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
textreferences: Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
textreferences: Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as a more recent precedent establishing that a state DOT traffic engineer who simultaneously seeks private consulting contracts with municipalities in a related technical domain (airports) creates an impermissible conflict of interest and violates the NSPE Code of Ethics, even when both employers are aware of the arrangement
version: 2002
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.178607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER Case No. 02-8 before current Engineer A case
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case. This case seems to present a more extreme example
from entity text: BER Case No. 02-8
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current Engineer A case
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current Engineer A case
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER Case No. 67-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 67-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
textreferences: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as foundational precedent establishing that an engineer serving simultaneously as county engineer and private consulting engineer, who prepares plans and then recommends and votes to approve those same plans in a public capacity, acts unethically due to direct conflict of interest
version: 1967
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.178457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER Case No. 67-1 before BER Case No. 02-8
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8 [relative to BER Case No. 67-1]
from entity text: BER Case No. 67-1
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case No. 02-8
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case No 02-8
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER Ethics Board BER 67-1 02-8 Present Case Escalating Severity Triangulation
type: BEREscalatingDual-RolePrecedentSeverityTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Escalating Dual-Role Precedent Severity Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to retrieve and triangulate among BER 67-1, BER 02-8, and the present case, identifying an escalating severity spectrum from self-approval (67-1) through adjacent-domain conflict (02-8) to exact same-domain conflict (present case)
casecontext: The Board's discussion section systematically reviewed prior BER cases to establish the escalating severity framework applicable to the present case
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Systematic analysis of BER 67-1 (county engineer/planning board self-approval), BER 02-8 (state DOT/airport adjacent-domain conflict), and the present case (DOE coal bed methane/private coal bed methane exact same-domain conflict), characterizing the present case as 'more extreme'
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: This Board has examined situations involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time.
textreferences: For example, in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board.
textreferences: Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
textreferences: This Board has examined situations involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time.
textreferences: Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.198340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Case 145 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 4
event count: 7
total elements: 11
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.177179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

CausalLink_Accepting Conflicting Consulti
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

CausalLink_Claiming Personal Testimony Ca
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.693007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

CausalLink_Omitting Consulting Relationsh
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

CausalLink_Using DOE-Branded Presentation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Claiming Personal Testimony Capacity
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: expert witness, private consultant
foreseen unintended effects: The answer 'on my own behalf' would be technically true but substantively misleading given the paid consulting arrangement
foreseen unintended effects: The public record would not accurately reflect the basis of his testimony
foreseen unintended effects: The regulatory body would remain uninformed of his actual capacity as a paid industry advocate
fulfills obligation text: Technically avoided making an affirmatively false claim of official DOE representation
guided by principle text: Candor and full honesty in professional communications
guided by principle text: Obligation to correct rather than exploit misleading impressions
guided by principle text: Transparency in conflicts of interest
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Technically avoid claiming official DOE endorsement while deflecting scrutiny of his actual role as a paid industry consultant, preserving the ambiguity that allowed his testimony to carry implied government credibility
requires capability text: Ability to accurately characterize the basis and capacity of professional testimony
requires capability text: Judgment to recognize when a direct question requires full disclosure
requires capability text: Understanding of professional ethics obligations in expert testimony
temporal marker: At the conclusion of testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Obligation not to deceive through technically true but misleading statements
violates obligation text: Obligation of candor and full honesty when directly questioned by a regulatory body
violates obligation text: Obligation to correct misleading impressions created by prior conduct (DOE-branded presentation)
violates obligation text: Obligation to disclose the actual capacity and financial basis of his testimony
within competence: true
comment: When directly asked at the conclusion of his testimony whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A stated he was testifying 'on his own behalf,' creating a materially ambiguous and misleading response given that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company and his presentation displayed DOE affiliation.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Claiming Personal Testimony Capacity (Action 4) → Ethical Ambiguity Compounded Despite Belated Disclaimer
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: When directly asked at the conclusion of his testimony whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A claimed personal testimony capacity; however, this belated disclaimer failed to counteract the impression already created by the DOE-branded presentation and DOE title disclosure throughout the testimony
cause: Claiming Personal Testimony Capacity (Action 4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A made the personal capacity disclaimer at the outset of testimony and used unbranded materials, the disclaimer would have been effective; placed at the conclusion after DOE-branded testimony, it was insufficient to prevent the harm
effect: Ethical Ambiguity Compounded Despite Belated Disclaimer
necessary factors: Direct questioning by hearing officials indicating existing confusion about Engineer A's capacity
necessary factors: Prior use of DOE-branded materials throughout testimony
necessary factors: Prior verbal disclosure of DOE employment without capacity disclaimer
necessary factors: Timing of disclaimer at conclusion rather than outset of testimony
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: DOE branding throughout testimony + late-stage disclaimer + media already present = disclaimer insufficient to prevent misidentification or cure ethical ambiguity
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's testimony was unethical in its manner, the selective disclosure pattern Engineer A employed — affirmatively disclosing his State X licensure limitation while strategically omitting his paid retainer from the coal bed methane company — reveals a calculated rather than negligent ethical failure. Engineer A demonstrated awareness of disclosure obligations by volunteering the licensure caveat, which makes the simultaneous concealment of his financial relationship with the regulated industry difficult to characterize as mere oversight. This distinction matters because negligent omission and intentional concealment occupy different positions on the ethical severity spectrum, and the Board's conclusion is strengthened when the surrounding conduct suggests deliberate credential management rather than inadvertent omission. The partial transparency about licensure may have actively functioned to create a false impression of procedural compliance, making the concealment of the retainer relationship more — not less — ethically serious than a simple failure to disclose.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's testimony was unethical in its manner is further supported by the downstream public record harm that his conduct foreseeably produced. When a newspaper subsequently identified Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' rather than as a paid industry consultant, this misidentification was not an independent journalistic error — it was the predictable consequence of Engineer A's sustained display of his DOE job title throughout his PowerPoint presentation without any counterbalancing disclosure of his private retainer. The newspaper's characterization accurately reflected the impression Engineer A's testimony was structured to create. This downstream distortion of the public record implicates Engineer A's obligations not merely to the regulatory body before which he testified, but to the broader public whose understanding of the regulatory proceeding was shaped by his misleading credential presentation. An engineer's honesty obligations in expert testimony extend to the foreseeable public record of that testimony, not only to the immediate audience in the hearing room.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: Engineer A's response — 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — when asked whether he represented the U.S. DOE constitutes a textbook instance of a technically true but materially misleading statement that violates the honesty obligations of the NSPE Code. The statement was technically accurate in the narrow sense that the DOE had not dispatched Engineer A to testify, but it was structurally designed to deflect inquiry about his actual capacity and interests. A complete and honest answer to the question being asked — whether his DOE affiliation was relevant to his testimony — would have required Engineer A to affirmatively disclose that he was appearing as a paid consultant for the coal bed methane company, not as a disinterested technical expert. By answering only the literal question while omitting the material context that would have changed how the regulatory body weighed his testimony, Engineer A violated the prohibition on artfully misleading statements. The ethical obligation of honesty in professional representations is not satisfied by statements that are technically defensible but functionally deceptive in context.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: III.1.c.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as an expert witness under these circumstances is reinforced by the escalating severity framework established across the BER precedent cases. BER Case 67-1 addressed a county engineer who reviewed plans he had himself prepared — a direct self-review conflict. BER Case 02-8 addressed an engineer who consulted privately in a domain adjacent to his government employment. The present case represents a more extreme configuration than either precedent: Engineer A's private consulting work was not merely adjacent to but identical in subject matter to his U.S. DOE responsibilities, and he testified before a regulatory body on the very type of permits his federal employer's research directly informs. This same-domain, same-subject-matter overlap creates a conflict of interest that is categorically more severe than the adjacent-domain conflict found sufficient to constitute an ethical violation in BER 02-8. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as expert witness is therefore not merely supported by precedent — it is compelled by a logical escalation of the conflict-of-interest analysis that the prior cases establish.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 3 c
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 401
answers question3: 402
answers question4: 403
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: III.1.c.
cited provision4: I.4.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as expert witness under these circumstances raises a question the Board did not explicitly address: whether the ethical impermissibility of Engineer A's participation was curable through disclosure alone, or whether the same-domain dual-role conflict was irresolvable regardless of what disclosures Engineer A might have made. The analysis suggests the latter. Even if Engineer A had fully disclosed at the outset that he was retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company and had explicitly distinguished his consulting capacity from his DOE employment, the underlying structural conflict — a federal coal bed methane researcher testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company in a regulatory proceeding governing coal bed methane permits — would have remained. Disclosure can mitigate conflicts of interest that are contingent and manageable; it cannot resolve conflicts that are inherent in the dual-role structure itself. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as expert witness implies that the appropriate remedy was abstention from the engagement, not improved disclosure practices, and this distinction has significant implications for how engineers in government roles should evaluate private consulting opportunities in the same technical domain.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
cited provision5: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions, taken together, reveal a compounding violation structure that is more ethically serious than either violation considered in isolation. Engineer A's use of a DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation in private retained testimony simultaneously violated the principle prohibiting exploitation of government affiliation for private benefit and the principle prohibiting use of public resources in private work. These two violations are not merely additive — they are mutually reinforcing. The DOE branding lent unearned institutional credibility to testimony that was in fact purchased by a regulated industry, and the use of government-produced or government-associated materials in that testimony meant that public resources were being deployed to advance a private commercial interest. The regulatory body and the public were therefore harmed not only by the misleading credential presentation but by the implicit suggestion that the U.S. Department of Energy's institutional authority stood behind testimony that was actually the product of a private commercial arrangement. Engineers serving in dual government-private roles should understand that using government-associated materials in private work does not merely create a conflict of interest — it actively weaponizes the government's credibility against the public interest the government exists to serve.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as a expert witness under the circumstances.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: The distinction between intentional misrepresentation and negligent failure to segregate professional identities does not meaningfully reduce the ethical severity of Engineer A's conduct. Whether Engineer A deliberately displayed his U.S. DOE job title to lend unearned governmental credibility to privately retained testimony, or simply failed to recognize that using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in a private consulting context would create a misleading impression, the material effect on the regulatory body and the public was identical: the State Y Environmental Quality Council and subsequent newspaper readers understood Engineer A to be speaking with the authority of a federal agency rather than as a paid industry consultant. The NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts does not require proof of intent — negligent misrepresentation that produces a materially false impression in a regulatory proceeding violates the honesty and objectivity obligations just as surely as deliberate deception. If anything, the negligence framing is more damning in one respect: an engineer who cannot recognize that displaying government credentials while concealing an industry retainer will mislead a regulatory body demonstrates a fundamental failure to internalize the ethical standards his profession requires. The Board's constraint that negligent versus intentional government credential misuse does not exculpate Engineer A is therefore correct, and the ethical severity of the conduct should be assessed by its foreseeable effect on the integrity of the regulatory record, not by the subjective mental state that produced it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer A's response — 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — when asked whether he represented the U.S. DOE constitutes a textbook case of a technically true but materially misleading statement that violates his honesty obligations under the NSPE Code. The statement was technically accurate in the narrow sense that the DOE had not dispatched him to testify and he was not formally representing agency policy. However, the statement was structurally designed — whether consciously or not — to deflect the questioner's concern without resolving it. The questioner's evident purpose was to understand whose interests Engineer A's testimony served and what institutional affiliations shaped his views. By answering only the narrow question of formal DOE authorization while omitting the equally material fact that he was retained and compensated by a coal bed methane company, Engineer A exploited the ambiguity between 'representing the DOE' and 'being paid by an industry the DOE regulates.' A fully honest response would have disclosed both the absence of formal DOE authorization and the presence of a private industry retainer. The NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts and its requirement of objective and truthful testimony are not satisfied by statements that are literally accurate but strategically incomplete. The artfully misleading omission prohibition is directly implicated: Engineer A's response left the regulatory body with a more distorted understanding of his actual capacity and interests than if he had said nothing at all.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.1.c.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A's simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher and private consultant for coal bed methane companies almost certainly constituted a breach of his faithful agent obligation to the DOE, and he should have obtained explicit DOE authorization before accepting private consulting work in the same technical domain. The faithful agent obligation requires that an engineer not engage in outside employment to the detriment of his regular work or his employer's interests. When the outside employment operates in the identical technical and regulatory domain as the government role — coal bed methane research and permitting — the potential for detriment is not speculative but structural. Engineer A's private clients have direct financial interests in the regulatory outcomes that his DOE work informs. His private consulting relationships therefore create an incentive structure that could consciously or unconsciously shape how he performs his government duties, what findings he emphasizes, and what positions he advocates within the agency. Whether the DOE was aware of or consented to this arrangement does not resolve the ethical question: the faithful agent duty is not satisfied merely by disclosure to an employer who fails to object. It requires that the outside work genuinely not be detrimental to the employer's interests and the public trust the employer serves. The same-domain concurrent employment conflict here is so direct that it is difficult to conceive of a disclosure and authorization framework that would fully resolve it, which is why the Board's escalating severity analysis — from BER 67-1 through BER 02-8 to the present case — correctly identifies this as the most serious of the three conflict patterns examined.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: II.3.
cited provision4: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The newspaper's subsequent identification of Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' rather than as a paid industry consultant is not merely an incidental downstream consequence of his testimony — it is direct evidence that his conduct created a foreseeable and material misimpression in the public record. A regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits is a matter of public concern, and the testimony presented at such a hearing enters the public record in a way that shapes both the regulatory outcome and public understanding of the issues. When Engineer A displayed his DOE title throughout his PowerPoint presentation and answered the capacity question in a way that deflected rather than clarified his industry relationship, he created conditions under which any reasonable observer — including a journalist covering the hearing — would conclude that a government researcher had testified. The fact that this misimpression materialized in print confirms that the risk was not hypothetical. Engineer A's obligations under the NSPE Code extend beyond his duties to the regulatory body itself: the Code's requirement that engineers conduct themselves honorably so as to enhance the reputation of the profession, and its prohibition on conduct that deceives the public, are implicated whenever an engineer's professional conduct produces a materially false public understanding of a matter affecting public welfare. The coal bed methane discharge permit proceeding directly affected environmental quality and public health, making the public trust dimension of Engineer A's misrepresentation independently significant beyond any procedural violation of the hearing's disclosure norms.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 c
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: II.3.c.
cited provision5: III.1.c.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The faithful agent obligation to the DOE and the objectivity obligation as an expert witness do not merely conflict with each other in Engineer A's situation — they are simultaneously and independently violated by the same underlying conduct, and satisfying one while violating the other is not possible given the structural nature of the dual role. The faithful agent obligation requires that Engineer A not engage in outside work detrimental to his government employer's interests; accepting a private retainer from a coal bed methane company to testify in a regulatory proceeding that his DOE work informs is precisely such detrimental outside employment. The objectivity obligation requires that Engineer A's expert testimony be free from the distorting influence of financial relationships with the parties whose interests the testimony serves; his private retainer from the coal bed methane company is precisely such a distorting financial relationship. These two violations are not in tension with each other in the sense of competing values that must be balanced — they are compounding failures that reinforce each other. An engineer who has breached his faithful agent duty by accepting a conflicting private retainer cannot then satisfy his objectivity obligation by testifying honestly, because the very existence of the retainer relationship structurally compromises his objectivity regardless of his subjective good faith. The Board's conclusion that it was unethical for Engineer A to serve as an expert witness under these circumstances is therefore grounded not merely in the disclosure failures at the hearing but in the irresolvable structural conflict created by accepting the retainer in the first place.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202 and Q203: The partial transparency Engineer A did provide — disclosing his State X licensure at the outset — created a false sense of procedural compliance that may have actively obscured the more ethically significant omissions regarding his paid industry relationship and his DOE credential conflation. By opening with a disclosure that satisfied a formal procedural expectation (licensure status), Engineer A established a frame in which the regulatory body might reasonably assume that all material disclosures had been made. This is the mechanism by which accurate presentation of one credential dimension can compound rather than mitigate the harm of omitting another: the licensure disclosure signaled transparency and good faith, making the subsequent omission of the industry retainer less likely to be noticed or questioned. Similarly, accurately presenting his DOE title without simultaneously disclosing his industry retainer created a more misleading impression than either element alone would have produced, because the DOE title lent the testimony a governmental authority that the retainer relationship directly contradicted. The principle of Government Affiliation Material Accuracy and the principle of Conflict of Interest Disclosure are not in tension here — they are jointly required, and satisfying one while omitting the other produces a net increase in the misleading character of the testimony. The NSPE Code's honesty and objectivity obligations require that disclosures be complete enough to give the regulatory body an accurate understanding of the witness's actual capacity and interests, not merely technically accurate in the dimensions the witness chooses to address.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
cited provision4: III.1.c.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q204: Engineer A's use of a DOE-branded PowerPoint in privately retained testimony simultaneously violated both the Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation principle and the Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work principle, and the Board should treat such compounding violations as categorically more serious than either violation in isolation. The Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation principle prohibits Engineer A from leveraging his DOE identity to lend unearned credibility to private testimony — the DOE title in his presentation implied governmental authority and institutional backing that his private consulting role did not carry. The Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work principle prohibits using government-developed materials, presentations, or resources in private commercial work — a PowerPoint developed in the context of DOE employment and bearing DOE identification is a government resource that should not be repurposed for private client benefit without explicit authorization. When both violations occur through the same act — displaying the DOE-branded presentation in a privately retained regulatory appearance — the harm is not merely additive but multiplicative: the regulatory body is simultaneously misled about Engineer A's institutional affiliation and the coal bed methane company receives a commercial benefit (enhanced witness credibility) derived from public resources. This compounding effect justifies heightened scrutiny and supports the Board's conclusion that Engineer A's participation as an expert witness under these circumstances was independently unethical, separate from and in addition to the disclosure failures during the testimony itself.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fulfill his categorical duty of honesty when he answered 'I am testifying on my own behalf' without disclosing his financial retainer from the coal bed methane company. Kantian deontological ethics requires not merely that statements be literally true but that they be offered in a spirit that respects the rational agency of the listener — that is, that they provide the listener with the information necessary to form an accurate understanding of the matter at hand. A statement that is technically true but structurally designed to foreclose further inquiry — by answering a narrow version of the question asked while omitting the information that would have answered the question's evident purpose — fails this test. The questioner asked whether Engineer A represented the DOE in order to understand whose interests his testimony served. Engineer A's answer addressed only the formal authorization dimension while strategically omitting the private retainer dimension that was equally responsive to the question's purpose. From a deontological standpoint, the duty of honesty is not satisfied by the avoidance of literal falsehood; it requires that the engineer not use technically true statements as instruments of deception. The maxim 'answer only the narrow question while omitting the material context that would change the listener's understanding' cannot be universalized as a principle of professional conduct without destroying the epistemic foundation on which regulatory proceedings depend.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 c
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.c.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate harm produced by Engineer A's testimony clearly outweighed any benefit the coal bed methane company or the regulatory process derived from his technical expertise. The harms were multiple and compounding: the State Y Environmental Quality Council received testimony it could not properly evaluate because it lacked knowledge of the witness's financial relationship with the regulated industry; the regulatory record was distorted by testimony that appeared to carry governmental authority it did not possess; the newspaper's misidentification of Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' propagated this distortion into the public record; and the public trust in government-affiliated expert witnesses was eroded by the revelation that a DOE employee had testified as a paid industry consultant without disclosure. These harms are not merely reputational — they affect the quality of environmental regulatory decisions that have direct consequences for public health and environmental quality. Against these harms, the benefit of Engineer A's technical expertise to the coal bed methane company was private and commercial, and the benefit to the regulatory process was undermined by the credibility distortion his undisclosed retainer created. A consequentialist analysis also requires consideration of systemic effects: if government-employed engineers routinely testified as undisclosed industry consultants, the entire institution of expert witness testimony in regulatory proceedings would be compromised. The deterrent value of finding Engineer A's conduct unethical therefore extends beyond the individual case to the integrity of the regulatory system as a whole.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.3.
cited provision4: II.3.a.
cited provision5: III.3.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's conduct throughout the State Y hearing reflects the character of an engineer who strategically deploys credentials for client advantage rather than one who genuinely internalizes professional ethical standards. The virtue of integrity requires consistency between one's internal commitments and external conduct — an engineer of integrity does not present one professional identity to a regulatory body while concealing a financial relationship that materially qualifies that identity. The virtue of objectivity requires that expert testimony be offered in a spirit of genuine service to the truth-finding function of the regulatory process, not as an instrument of advocacy for a paying client. Engineer A's display of his DOE title throughout his PowerPoint presentation while concealing his private retainer is not a momentary lapse but a sustained pattern of conduct across the entire hearing — from the initial credential presentation through the PowerPoint display to the deflective answer at the close of testimony. This pattern suggests not inadvertence but a settled disposition to exploit the credibility of his government affiliation for private commercial benefit. A virtuous engineer, confronted with the question of whether he represented the DOE, would have recognized the question's evident purpose and responded with full transparency about both his government employment and his private retainer. The fact that Engineer A instead gave a technically true but strategically incomplete answer suggests that he understood the significance of the omission and chose concealment over transparency — a choice that reflects a fundamental failure of professional character.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: III.1.c.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A breached his duty as a faithful agent to the U.S. Department of Energy by accepting private consulting retainers in the same coal bed methane domain in which he performs his federal duties, and this breach exists independently of whether the DOE was aware of or consented to the arrangement. The faithful agent duty is not merely a contractual obligation that can be discharged by disclosure and employer acquiescence — it is a categorical professional obligation grounded in the engineer's role as a trustee of the public interest that his government employer serves. The DOE's coal bed methane research function exists to serve the public interest in sound energy and environmental policy; Engineer A's private consulting for coal bed methane companies creates a financial interest in regulatory outcomes that is structurally adverse to the disinterested pursuit of that public interest. Even if the DOE were to formally authorize the outside consulting, the ethical obligation not to exploit government affiliation for private commercial gain would remain. The deontological analysis therefore supports a stronger conclusion than the Board's explicit findings: not only was it unethical for Engineer A to testify as he did, but it was independently unethical for him to have accepted the private consulting retainer in the same domain as his government duties, regardless of disclosure, regardless of employer knowledge, and regardless of whether any specific testimony was ever given.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: I.4.
cited provision4: III.1.c.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer A had affirmatively disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company, and had explicitly distinguished his personal consulting capacity from his U.S. DOE employment, the State Y Environmental Quality Council would have been positioned to appropriately weigh his testimony, and the newspaper misidentification and associated public trust harm would almost certainly have been avoided. The regulatory body's ability to evaluate expert testimony depends entirely on its knowledge of the witness's affiliations and financial interests — without that knowledge, it cannot apply the appropriate skepticism to testimony offered by a paid industry advocate. Affirmative disclosure at the outset would have transformed the regulatory record from one containing a misleading impression of governmental authority to one accurately reflecting the testimony of a technically qualified private consultant with a disclosed financial interest. However, such disclosure would not have fully resolved the ethical concerns arising from Engineer A's dual role: the same-domain conflict between his DOE employment and his private coal bed methane consulting would have remained, and the faithful agent breach would have persisted regardless of what was disclosed at the hearing. The counterfactual therefore supports a two-level analysis: disclosure would have resolved the testimony-specific ethical violations (the misleading credential presentation, the undisclosed retainer, the artfully incomplete capacity answer) while leaving intact the more fundamental ethical violation of accepting a private retainer in the same domain as his government duties.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: II 4 a
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.1.c.
cited provision4: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q402 and Q403: Even if Engineer A had declined the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer and testified solely in a personal technical capacity without any financial relationship to the regulated industry, the same-domain dual-role conflict created by his DOE employment would have raised serious ethical concerns about his participation as an expert witness — though the analysis would be significantly less clear-cut than in the actual case. The core concern is whether a government employee whose agency has regulatory and research responsibilities in a domain can testify as a private expert in regulatory proceedings affecting that domain without compromising either his government role or the integrity of the proceeding. Without a financial retainer, the most acute conflict of interest would be absent, but the appearance of conflict — and the potential for his government expertise to be perceived as carrying institutional authority it does not formally represent — would remain. If Engineer A had additionally used a presentation containing no DOE branding and had explicitly noted his consulting relationship (or its absence), the credential conflation violation would have been resolved. Whether the remaining same-domain dual-role concern would have been sufficient to render his participation impermissible depends on whether the DOE had authorized the testimony and whether Engineer A could genuinely testify objectively without his government role shaping his analysis in ways favorable to the industry. The Board's escalating severity framework — from BER 67-1 through BER 02-8 to the present case — suggests that same-domain conflicts without financial retainers (analogous to BER 02-8's adjacent-domain pattern) are ethically problematic but potentially resolvable through proper authorization and disclosure, while same-domain conflicts with financial retainers (the present case) are categorically impermissible.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If the State Y Environmental Quality Council had adopted a formal pre-testimony disclosure requirement mandating that all expert witnesses declare any financial relationships with regulated industries before testifying, Engineer A's conduct would have constituted a procedural violation in addition to an ethical one — but the absence of such a formal requirement does not diminish, let alone eliminate, his independent ethical obligation to disclose the retainer relationship under the NSPE Code. The NSPE Code's disclosure obligations are self-executing professional duties that do not depend on external regulatory frameworks for their activation. An engineer's obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, to avoid deceptive acts, and to issue truthful and objective testimony exists regardless of whether the forum in which he testifies has adopted formal disclosure rules. The absence of a formal requirement may affect whether Engineer A faces procedural sanctions from the regulatory body, but it has no bearing on whether he violated his professional ethical obligations. Indeed, the NSPE Code's conflict of interest disclosure standard has evolved precisely to address situations where formal regulatory requirements have not yet caught up with professional ethical norms — the Code's requirements are intended to be more demanding than the minimum required by law or regulation. Engineer A's failure to disclose his retainer relationship was therefore an independent ethical violation under the NSPE Code regardless of the State Y Environmental Quality Council's procedural framework, and the Board's conclusions are properly grounded in the Code's self-executing obligations rather than in any external disclosure requirement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.1.c.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation to Engineer A's DOE employer and his Objectivity Obligation as an expert witness was not merely unresolved — it was structurally irresolvable given the facts. Both obligations were simultaneously compromised by the same act: accepting a private retainer from a coal bed methane company while employed as a federal coal bed methane researcher. Satisfying the Faithful Agent Obligation would have required Engineer A to either abstain from private consulting in the same domain or obtain explicit DOE authorization, neither of which occurred. Satisfying the Objectivity Obligation would have required Engineer A to testify free of undisclosed financial interests in the outcome, which was impossible once the retainer was accepted. This case teaches that when a single professional act simultaneously breaches two foundational obligations — loyalty to employer and objectivity to the public — no amount of partial disclosure (such as the licensure statement) can rehabilitate the ethical posture. The Board's conclusions implicitly recognize this irresolvability by finding violations on both the manner of testimony and the threshold decision to serve as expert witness at all, treating the two violations as compounding rather than alternative.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of Government Affiliation Material Accuracy and the principle of Conflict of Interest Disclosure do not merely coexist in this case — they interact in a compounding and mutually reinforcing way that produces a deception greater than either omission alone would generate. Engineer A's accurate display of his U.S. DOE job title, standing alone, would have been truthful. His concealment of his industry retainer, standing alone, would have been a conflict of interest violation. But the combination of the two — prominently displaying DOE credentials while concealing a paid relationship with the regulated industry — created an affirmative misrepresentation: the audience, including the regulatory body and the press, was led to believe that DOE institutional authority stood behind testimony that was in fact commercially motivated. This case teaches that partial transparency can be more ethically dangerous than silence, because it selectively activates the credibility of one identity (government researcher) to suppress scrutiny of another (paid industry consultant). The Board's finding that the manner of testimony was unethical is best understood as a recognition that this compounding dynamic violated the Honesty Obligation and the prohibition on deceptive acts at a level beyond what either violation in isolation would have reached.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: III.3.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Licensure Disclosure principle, which Engineer A did satisfy by announcing at the outset that he was licensed only in State X, illustrates a critical lesson about the hierarchy of ethical obligations in expert testimony: procedural compliance with a lesser disclosure requirement does not discharge — and may actively obscure — the more substantive obligation of conflict of interest disclosure. Engineer A's licensure statement created a false impression of procedural good faith, signaling to the regulatory body that he was being forthright about his credentials and limitations. This partial transparency functioned as ethical camouflage, making the subsequent omission of his industry retainer less visible and less likely to be probed. This case teaches that the NSPE Code's honesty and conflict of interest provisions must be understood as a hierarchy in which financial relationship disclosure is categorically more material to the integrity of regulatory testimony than jurisdictional licensure status. When a less material disclosure is made prominently and a more material one is withheld entirely, the overall conduct is not partially compliant — it is affirmatively misleading. The Board's conclusion that the manner of testimony was unethical is consistent with treating the licensure disclosure not as a mitigating factor but as an element of the broader pattern of selective transparency that characterized Engineer A's conduct.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.692910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conflict-of-Interest-Disclosure-Standard-Recommendation-Instance
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureStandardinRecommendationContexts
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard in Recommendation Contexts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard in Recommendation Contexts
sourcetext: Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
usedby: BER in evaluating whether Engineer A's omission of his consulting relationship constituted an ethical conflict of interest violation
usedincontext: Applies to Engineer A's failure to disclose his financial relationship with coal bed methane companies while providing technical testimony that implicitly supports their regulatory interests, creating an undisclosed conflict between his apparent neutrality and his actual financial stake.
version: As codified in NSPE BER precedent
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.179479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureSupersessionofAbsoluteAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's concealment of his financial relationship with coal bed methane companies violated the evolved standard that requires affirmative disclosure of conflicts rather than mere avoidance of the conflicted engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to comply with the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard by promptly and completely disclosing his financial relationship with coal bed methane companies to the State Y Environmental Quality Council, rather than applying an outdated absolute-avoidance framework or simply declining to disclose — the evolved standard requires disclosure, not mere avoidance.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; evolved conflict-of-interest management standard; BER precedent on disclosure superseding avoidance
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the outset of and throughout testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.190936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Consulting Retainer Payment Made
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Impartiality_of_Expert_Witness_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthfulness_in_Public_Statements_Constraint
causes state change: A compensated advocacy relationship now exists between Engineer A and the regulated industry; testimony is financially motivated, transforming its character from independent expert opinion to paid advocacy
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Clarify_Capacity_in_Which_Testifying
creates obligation: Disclose_Financial_Relationship_to_Hearing_Body
creates obligation: Disclose_Who_Is_Paying_for_Testimony
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Prior to and surrounding the hearing date
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: high
comment: A coal bed methane company retained Engineer A through his private consulting business and paid for his attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, creating a financial relationship that was not disclosed during testimony.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.197592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Cross-Council Regulatory Testimony Conflict Non-Participation Engineer A State X Council State Y Hearing
type: Cross-CouncilRegulatoryTestimonyConflictNon-ParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council while simultaneously accepting a private retainer to testify before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on coal bed methane discharge permit rules — creating a cross-council conflict of interest.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Cross-Council Regulatory Testimony Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company before the State Y Environmental Quality Council while simultaneously serving as a member of the State X Environmental Quality Council, as this dual role created an appearance of impropriety and a structural conflict of interest that compromised the engineer's impartiality and the public's trust in both councils.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; conflict of interest provisions; appearance of impropriety standards
sourcetext: Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council.
temporalscope: At the time of testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.197549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DOE Employment Disclosed at Hearing
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Government_Credibility_Misuse_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthfulness_in_Public_Statements_Constraint
causes state change: DOE's institutional authority is implicitly attached to privately sponsored testimony; the hearing body and public may reasonably infer government endorsement of testimony that is actually industry-funded advocacy
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Clarify_DOE_Does_Not_Endorse_Testimony
creates obligation: Disclose_Private_Consulting_Relationship
creates obligation: Prevent_Misleading_Impression_of_Government_Backing
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A disclosed his DOE employment during testimony, which, combined with the DOE-branded PowerPoint, lent implicit government credibility to testimony that was actually sponsored by a private industry client.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DOE Employment Status Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Objectivity_and_Impartiality_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Employer_Loyalty_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A enters a structurally conflicted professional state; all subsequent professional actions are colored by undisclosed dual allegiances
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Avoid_Actions_Compromising_DOE_Integrity
creates obligation: Disclose_Dual_Employment_When_Relevant
creates obligation: Obtain_DOE_Approval_for_Outside_Employment
emergency status: medium
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior to hearing; ongoing background condition
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A holds simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE employee while maintaining a private consulting practice serving coal bed methane companies, creating an inherent dual-role conflict before any testimony occurs.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DOE Employment Status Established (Event 1) + Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1) → Dual Conflict of Interest Creating Systemic Ethical Violation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A holds simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE employee while maintaining a private consulting business, and accepted a paid consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company, creating overlapping conflicts between federal employment obligations, private financial interests, and professional engineering ethics duties
cause: DOE Employment Status Established (Event 1) + Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1)
counterfactual: If Engineer A had either: (a) not accepted the retainer, (b) not testified at the hearing, or (c) fully disclosed all relationships and obtained appropriate clearances, the systemic ethical violation would not have materialized in its current form
effect: Dual Conflict of Interest Creating Systemic Ethical Violation
necessary factors: Acceptance of retainer from a party with regulatory interests
necessary factors: Active private consulting business
necessary factors: Failure to obtain required clearances or make required disclosures under federal employment and professional ethics rules
necessary factors: Simultaneous DOE federal employment
necessary factors: Testimony before a public regulatory body on matters related to the retaining company's interests
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Federal employment + private retainer from interested party + regulatory testimony + non-disclosure = sufficient to establish violation of NSPE Code Section III.4 (conflict of interest) and applicable federal ethics regulations
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A affirmatively disclose his paid retainer from the coal bed methane company and distinguish his private consulting capacity from his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, or testify using his DOE-branded presentation while answering capacity questions narrowly and literally?
focus: Engineer A, simultaneously employed as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher and retained as a private consultant by a coal bed methane company, must decide how to present his credentials and financial relationships when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on coal bed methane discharge permits.
option1: At the outset of testimony, affirmatively disclose that attendance is funded by the coal bed methane company through a private consulting retainer, explicitly distinguish the private consulting capacity from DOE employment, and remove or clearly disclaim DOE branding from the presentation so the regulatory body can accurately weigh the testimony.
option2: Present DOE-branded credentials as part of standard professional identification, answer the direct question about DOE representation with the technically accurate statement 'I am testifying on my own behalf,' and rely on the absence of a formal State Y disclosure requirement as sufficient procedural compliance — leaving it to the regulatory body to probe further if interested.
option3: Satisfy the most salient credential disclosure by announcing State X licensure limitations at the outset — as Engineer A did — while treating the consulting retainer as a private commercial arrangement not subject to affirmative disclosure absent a direct and specific question about financial compensation from the regulated industry.
role label: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A decline the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer and abstain from serving as a paid expert witness in the same domain as his DOE duties, or accept the retainer and participate as expert witness on the basis that disclosure and employer awareness can adequately manage the conflict?
focus: Engineer A, employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane domain, must decide whether to accept a private consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company and serve as a paid expert witness in a regulatory proceeding governing coal bed methane discharge permits — a domain identical to his federal responsibilities.
option1: Refuse the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely on the ground that the exact same-domain overlap between the private engagement and DOE duties creates an irresolvable structural conflict of interest that cannot be cured by disclosure, employer notification, or any other procedural measure.
option2: Seek and obtain formal written authorization from the DOE for the private consulting engagement, treating employer consent and compliance with applicable federal dual-employment regulations as sufficient to manage the conflict and permit participation as expert witness with full disclosure at the hearing.
option3: Accept the consulting retainer and serve as expert witness while making comprehensive affirmative disclosures at the hearing — including the retainer relationship, the DOE employment, and the domain overlap — on the theory that full transparency to the regulatory body adequately manages the conflict even absent formal employer authorization.
role label: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.688035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A use his DOE-branded presentation materials and professional title in his regulatory testimony while privately retained by the coal bed methane industry, or must he remove government branding and affirmatively clarify the private capacity of his appearance before presenting any technical opinions?
focus: Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title throughout his PowerPoint presentation while testifying as a privately retained consultant for a coal bed methane company, creating a compounding misrepresentation in which accurate credential display and concealed financial relationship together produced a false impression of governmental authority behind commercially motivated testimony.
option1: Present testimony using a presentation that contains no U.S. DOE branding or institutional identification, explicitly identify the private consulting capacity and the coal bed methane company retainer at the outset, and ensure that any reference to DOE employment is accompanied by an affirmative clarification that the testimony is not offered on behalf of or with the endorsement of the federal agency.
option2: Present the DOE job title as one element of a standard professional credential slide — alongside licensure status and technical qualifications — treating it as factual background information about the engineer's expertise rather than as an institutional endorsement, without separately disclosing the private retainer unless directly and specifically asked about compensation.
option3: Retain the DOE-branded presentation materials but add a brief oral statement at the outset noting that the testimony is offered in a personal professional capacity rather than as an official DOE position, without affirmatively disclosing the coal bed methane company retainer on the theory that the capacity disclaimer adequately distinguishes the government and private roles.
role label: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.688151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A affirmatively disclose both his paid retainer from the coal bed methane company and his non-licensure in State Y at the outset of testimony, or limit his disclosure to the licensure caveat while testifying under his DOE-branded presentation?
focus: Engineer A: Dual-Role Capacity and Financial Relationship Disclosure at State Y Regulatory Hearing
option1: At the opening of testimony, affirmatively state both that he is retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company and that he is appearing in a private consulting capacity distinct from his U.S. DOE employment, in addition to disclosing his State X licensure limitation.
option2: Disclose only the State X licensure limitation at the outset — satisfying the explicit procedural expectation of the forum — and rely on the 'I am testifying on my own behalf' response to address any direct questions about DOE representation, treating financial relationship disclosure as required only if the forum's rules expressly mandate it.
option3: Present credentials and testimony without volunteering the retainer relationship at the outset, but commit to fully disclosing the consulting relationship and compensation if the regulatory body or opposing parties directly ask about financial affiliations with the regulated industry.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.688884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A decline the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely given his concurrent U.S. DOE employment in the identical technical and regulatory domain, or accept the retainer subject to disclosure and DOE authorization?
focus: Engineer A: Decision to Accept Same-Domain Private Consulting Retainer While Employed as Federal Coal Bed Methane Researcher
option1: Refuse the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely on the grounds that the same-domain overlap with his U.S. DOE employment creates a structurally irresolvable conflict of interest that no disclosure or authorization framework can cure.
option2: Before accepting the retainer, obtain explicit written authorization from the U.S. DOE confirming that the private consulting engagement does not conflict with his federal duties, and condition acceptance on that authorization together with full disclosure to the regulatory body at any hearing.
option3: Accept the consulting retainer on the basis that private consulting in the same technical domain is permissible when accompanied by comprehensive disclosure to all affected parties — the DOE, the regulatory body, and opposing parties — treating the conflict as manageable through transparency rather than categorically disqualifying.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.688962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A present his regulatory testimony using his U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint — which displays his government job title throughout — or use a presentation that reflects only his personal technical credentials and explicitly identifies his consulting relationship with the coal bed methane company?
focus: Engineer A: Use of DOE-Branded Presentation Materials in Privately Retained Regulatory Testimony
option1: Prepare and deliver a presentation that omits DOE branding and job title identification, presents only personal technical credentials, and explicitly identifies his consulting relationship with and compensation from the coal bed methane company, so that the regulatory body and public record accurately reflect his actual capacity.
option2: Proceed with the DOE-branded PowerPoint as prepared but supplement it with an explicit oral statement at the outset of testimony disclosing the private retainer and distinguishing his consulting capacity from his government employment, treating the credential display as a truthful representation of his qualifications rather than an institutional endorsement.
option3: Present testimony using the existing DOE-branded PowerPoint on the basis that his government job title is a truthful credential identifier, that he disclosed his State X licensure limitation, and that the regulatory body bears responsibility for inquiring into financial relationships if it considers them material to the proceeding.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer A affirmatively disclose his paid consulting retainer from the coal bed methane company at the outset of his regulatory testimony, or should he limit his disclosures to his DOE employment and State X licensure status and answer capacity questions only as narrowly posed?
focus: Engineer A, a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher retained as a private consultant by a coal bed methane company, must decide how to present his credentials and affiliations when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council — specifically whether to affirmatively disclose his paid industry retainer alongside his DOE employment, or to answer only what is directly asked while displaying his DOE-branded presentation.
option1: At the outset of testimony, affirmatively disclose the paid consulting retainer from the coal bed methane company, explicitly distinguish his personal consulting capacity from his U.S. DOE employment, and remove or clearly disclaim the DOE branding from his presentation so the regulatory body can accurately weigh his testimony.
option2: Disclose his DOE employment and State X licensure limitation as procedural credentials at the outset, answer capacity questions as narrowly posed without volunteering the retainer relationship, and rely on the regulatory body to ask follow-up questions if it requires further information about financial affiliations.
option3: Decline to serve as expert witness in the State Y proceeding unless and until he obtains explicit DOE authorization for same-domain private consulting, recognizing that the structural conflict between his federal coal bed methane research role and private industry testimony cannot be resolved through disclosure alone.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Should Engineer A accept the private consulting retainer from the coal bed methane company and serve as expert witness in the State Y regulatory proceeding, or should he abstain from the engagement because his concurrent U.S. DOE employment in the identical technical domain creates an irresolvable conflict of interest?
focus: Engineer A, a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher, must decide whether to accept a private consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company and serve as an expert witness in a regulatory proceeding governing coal bed methane discharge permits — a domain identical to his federal duties — or to abstain from the engagement on the ground that the same-domain dual-role conflict is structurally irresolvable regardless of what disclosures he might make.
option1: Decline the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer and refrain from serving as expert witness in the State Y proceeding, recognizing that the same-domain overlap between his DOE coal bed methane research and the subject matter of the testimony creates a structural conflict of interest that no disclosure or authorization framework can fully resolve.
option2: Accept the consulting retainer and serve as expert witness, but affirmatively disclose the retainer relationship, distinguish his consulting capacity from his DOE employment, and remove DOE branding from his presentation — treating enhanced disclosure as sufficient to manage the dual-role conflict without requiring abstention.
option3: Condition acceptance of the retainer on obtaining explicit written authorization from the DOE permitting same-domain private consulting, treating the faithful agent obligation as dischargeable through employer consent and formal procedural compliance rather than as a categorical prohibition on same-domain dual employment.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Engineer A DOE Consulting Testimony
type: DualPublic-PrivateRoleInterrelatedDomainConflictNon-ParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted a private retainer from a coal bed methane company to testify at a regulatory hearing while employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane division, creating a direct domain-overlap conflict.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from accepting a private retainer to testify at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while simultaneously employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena, as the interrelationship between the governmental role and the private consulting engagement created a foreseeable conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8; conflict of interest provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the private retainer and testifying at the State Y hearing
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.189822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Engineer A DOT Airport
type: DualPublic-PrivateRoleInterrelatedDomainConflictNon-ParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case No. 02-8 precedent cited in the discussion as establishing the adjacent-domain conflict principle that was then applied with greater force to the present same-domain case.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case No. 02-8)
constraintclass: Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer, was prohibited from simultaneously serving on a part-time basis seeking airport design contracts with municipalities, because the highway and airport domains were sufficiently interrelated — highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could impact decisions in another — creating a foreseeable conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 02-8
sourcetext: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
temporalscope: Duration of simultaneous State DOT employment and private airport consulting solicitation
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere
textreferences: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.195906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Dual Role Self-Review Conflict Prohibition John Doe County Engineer Planning Board
type: DualRoleSelf-ReviewConflictProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case No. 67-1 foundational precedent cited in the discussion, establishing that an engineer who prepares plans in a private capacity and then recommends and votes to approve those same plans in a governmental capacity commits an unethical self-review conflict.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: John Doe (BER Case No. 67-1)
constraintclass: Dual Role Self-Review Conflict Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: John Doe, as both the county engineer who recommended approval of subdivision plans and a member of the county planning board who voted to approve those same plans — which he had prepared in his private consulting capacity — was prohibited from occupying both roles simultaneously, as the self-review conflict was in direct violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 67-1
sourcetext: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice. Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
temporalscope: Duration of simultaneous county engineer, planning board member, and private consulting roles
textreferences: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice. Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer-Selective-Disclosure-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerSelectiveDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer A was obligated to volunteer his consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies when it was not directly solicited during his testimony, and whether his omission constituted an ethical violation given the materiality of that relationship to his testimony's credibility.
version: As codified in NSPE BER precedent
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.179034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Evolved Standard Non-Compliance
type: ConflictofInterestEvolutionStandardComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to apply the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management requiring prompt and affirmative disclosure of financial relationships with industry clients in regulatory testimony contexts, instead relying on a passive approach that concealed his industry compensation
casecontext: Engineer A's conduct at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing failed to meet the evolved professional standard requiring affirmative disclosure of all financial relationships with interested parties
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Failure to disclose industry compensation for hearing attendance; concealment of consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies throughout testimony
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.189212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Government Material Private Testimony Non-Use Failure
type: Government-BrandedMaterialPrivateConsultingNon-UseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Government-Branded Material Private Consulting Non-Use Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to maintain strict separation between government-produced materials and private consulting deliverables, using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in private consulting testimony
casecontext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrated the problem of drawing a line between his activities as a government employee and a private consultant
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Use of a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification during private consulting testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.198057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Role Government Private Conflict Recognition Failure
type: GovernmentalEmployeePrivateConsultingDomainOverlapConflictRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Governmental Employee Private Consulting Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that his simultaneous U.S. DOE coal bed methane position and private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies created a direct domain overlap conflict that precluded ethically testifying as an industry-retained witness at regulatory hearings on coal bed methane matters
casecontext: Engineer A held overlapping governmental and private roles in the same technical domain and failed to recognize the irreconcilable conflict this created
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Simultaneous maintenance of DOE coal bed methane role and private coal bed methane consulting practice; acceptance of industry-paid regulatory testimony engagement
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.189424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Witness Credential Transparent Presentation Failure
type: ExpertWitnessCredentialandAffiliationTransparentPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Credential and Affiliation Transparent Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to transparently present all relevant credentials and affiliations, specifically by displaying his U.S. DOE job title while concealing his industry consulting relationship, and by giving a misleading response to a direct question about the capacity in which he was testifying
casecontext: Engineer A's testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing involved multiple failures of transparent credential and affiliation presentation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Display of DOE title in PowerPoint; misleading 'own behalf' response; non-disclosure of coal bed methane company compensation
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.187034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Witness Objectivity Regulatory Testimony
type: ExpertWitnessNon-AdvocateObjectivityinRegulatoryTestimonyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Non-Advocate Objectivity in Regulatory Testimony Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to exercise the capability to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing independent of the coal bed methane company's advocacy interests, but his industry-retained status and concealment of that relationship raised serious questions about whether this objectivity was maintained
casecontext: Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company whose interests were directly affected by the proposed rules
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Testimony at regulatory hearing while concealing industry compensation relationship, creating structural conditions that compromise objectivity
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.188903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Extreme Same-Domain Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Self-Application Failure
type: ExtremeSame-DomainDual-RoleConflictHeightenedScrutinySelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between DOE coal bed methane employment and private coal bed methane consulting represented a qualitatively more severe conflict than the adjacent-domain scenarios in prior BER cases, requiring heightened scrutiny and abstention
casecontext: The Board explicitly characterized Engineer A's situation as a 'more extreme example' than BER 67-1 and 02-8, indicating that Engineer A failed to apply the heightened scrutiny warranted by exact same-domain overlap
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with private coal bed methane consulting and regulatory testimony without recognizing the heightened severity of the same-domain conflict, which the Board characterized as a 'more extreme example'
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
textreferences: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
textreferences: Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.198194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent DOE Breach Self-Recognition Failure
type: Dual-RoleFaithfulAgentBreachSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dual-Role Faithful Agent Breach Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that his private coal bed methane consulting activities constituted a breach of his fundamental duty to serve as a faithful agent and trustee for his governmental employer, the U.S. DOE
casecontext: Engineer A's dual employment in the same technical domain as his government employer constituted a breach of faithful agent duty that the Board found clear and unambiguous
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Simultaneously performing private consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed in the U.S. DOE coal bed methane division, breaching the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.198506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation Failure
type: GovernmentAffiliationNon-ExploitationinPrivateTestimonyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to refrain from displaying and invoking his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and testimony while testifying in a private consulting capacity, thereby creating a false impression of official governmental endorsement
casecontext: Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint while testifying as a privately retained consultant for a coal bed methane company at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Display of U.S. DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation; invocation of DOE employment at outset of testimony; resulting newspaper characterization of testimony as coming from a 'U.S. DOE researcher'
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.185080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Governmental Procedure Policy Dual Employment Compliance Failure
type: GovernmentalProcedureandPolicyDualEmploymentComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Governmental Procedure and Policy Dual Employment Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to identify and comply with applicable governmental procedures, policies, and ethics regulations governing dual employment, including avoiding use of public resources (DOE PowerPoint) in private consulting work
casecontext: The Board cautioned that Engineer A needed to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Failure to follow applicable governmental procedures and policies governing dual employment, including use of DOE-branded materials in private testimony and failure to obtain required authorizations for private consulting activities
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
textreferences: the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.193593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Negligent vs Intentional DOE PowerPoint Misconduct Equivalence Failure
type: NegligentvsIntentionalMisconductEthicalEquivalenceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Negligent vs Intentional Misconduct Ethical Equivalence Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in private consulting testimony was impermissible regardless of whether the use was negligent or intentional, and failed to audit his materials accordingly
casecontext: Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation with U.S. DOE representation when testifying at the State Y hearing, raising the question of whether this was careless error or intentional credibility enhancement — the Board found it impermissible in either case
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Use of a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification during what appears to have been private consulting testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony. However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate
textreferences: An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony. However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.197916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Hearing Financial Disclosure Failure
type: RegulatoryHearingFinancialRelationshipAffirmativeDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Affirmative Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to affirmatively disclose at the outset of his testimony that his attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
casecontext: Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company, without disclosing this financial relationship
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to disclose industry compensation relationship during testimony; omission only revealed later through newspaper investigation
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.188376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Testimony Ethical Obligations Understanding Failure
type: ExpertWitnessCredentialandAffiliationTransparentPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Credential and Affiliation Transparent Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated a fundamental failure to understand his ethical obligations as a professional engineer serving as an expert witness, including obligations regarding credential presentation, affiliation disclosure, and capacity clarification
casecontext: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's actions 'calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer'
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Multiple simultaneous ethical failures in regulatory testimony: using DOE-branded materials, claiming to testify 'on his own behalf' while being paid by a coal bed methane company, failing to disclose State Y non-licensure, and failing to disclose financial relationship with industry client
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.198982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Same-Domain DOE Coal Bed Methane Conflict Abstention Failure
type: Same-DomainGovernment-PrivateDualRoleConflictAbstentionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Abstention Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his simultaneous employment in the U.S. DOE coal bed methane division and private consulting for coal bed methane companies created an irreconcilable same-domain conflict requiring abstention from one role
casecontext: Engineer A simultaneously held a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane division and performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies, testifying at a State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure to abstain from private coal bed methane consulting while employed in the DOE coal bed methane division, resulting in a conflict the Board found 'virtually impossible' to manage
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.197745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Same-Domain Dual Role Conflict Non-Abstention
type: Same-DomainGovernment-PrivateDualRoleConflictAbstentionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Abstention Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that simultaneously holding a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane arena and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies created an irreconcilable same-domain conflict requiring abstention from one role
casecontext: Engineer A held a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane arena while simultaneously consulting privately for coal bed methane companies and testifying at regulatory hearings on their behalf
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Simultaneous maintenance of U.S. DOE coal bed methane position and private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies, culminating in industry-paid regulatory testimony
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.188698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A State DOT Airport Adjacent-Domain Conflict Abstention Failure
type: Same-DomainGovernment-PrivateDualRoleConflictAbstentionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Abstention Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A (BER 02-8) failed to recognize that simultaneously serving as a State DOT traffic engineer and seeking private airport consulting contracts with the same municipalities created a foreseeable conflict of interest requiring abstention, even though the domains (highways vs. airports) were not identical
casecontext: BER Case No. 02-8 — Engineer A's proposed dual role as State DOT traffic engineer and part-time airport design consultant for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Being approached to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities while continuing as a State DOT employee who reviewed those same municipalities' traffic signal work — an adjacent-domain conflict the Board found ethically impermissible
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 02-8)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In deciding that it would be unethical for Engineer A to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements... while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
textreferences: In deciding that it would be unethical for Engineer A to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements... while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
textreferences: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.198847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Technically True Misleading Statement Own Behalf Response
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize and avoid making a technically true but materially misleading statement when he responded 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, omitting the material fact that he was testifying as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company
casecontext: When directly asked whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A gave a technically accurate but materially misleading response that concealed his industry-retained consulting status
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Response of 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to direct question about DOE affiliation, which was technically true but created false impression that no industry client was involved
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.188547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed State Y Jurisdiction Disclosure
type: ExpertWitnessUnlicensedJurisdictionStatusProactiveDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Unlicensed Jurisdiction Status Proactive Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A partially exercised this capability by disclosing at the outset of testimony that he was licensed only in State X, but failed to fully exercise it by not connecting this disclosure to the broader context of his qualifications and the weight the regulatory body should assign to his testimony
casecontext: Engineer A testified before the State Y Environmental Quality Council while holding a professional engineering license only in State X, and did disclose this at the outset of testimony
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Disclosure of State X-only licensure at outset of testimony in State Y
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:15.583733+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.189055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A's DOE employment overlaps Engineer A's private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Engineer A serves as a U.S. DOE employee working in the coal bed methane arena while also providing consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
from entity text: Engineer A's DOE employment
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Engineer A's private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Engineer A s private consulting practice for coal
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation display of DOE job title during State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE [during his testimony at the hearing]
from entity text: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation display of DOE job title
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing test
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.200075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A's disclosure of PE licensure and DOE employment before Engineer A's omission of consulting work during testimony
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A began his testimony by stating PE licensure and DOE employment, but never stated that he works for coal bed methane companies throughout his testimony
from entity text: Engineer A's disclosure of PE licensure and DOE employment
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's omission of consulting work during testimony
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s omission of consulting work during te
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A's main testimony before question about testifying on behalf of DOE
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf'
from entity text: Engineer A's main testimony
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: question about testifying on behalf of DOE
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: question about testifying on behalf of DOE
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A's prior employment at consulting firm (BER 02-8 context) before Engineer A's employment with State DOT traffic engineering division (BER 02-8 context)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Prior to Engineer A's employment with the State DOT's traffic engineering division, Engineer A performed airport design through a consulting firm
from entity text: Engineer A's prior employment at consulting firm (BER 02-8 context)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's employment with State DOT traffic engineering division (BER 02-8 context)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s employment with State DOT traffic eng
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A's retention by coal bed methane company before State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company [prior to the hearing at which he testified]
from entity text: Engineer A's retention by coal bed methane company
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing test
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Engineer A State Y Regulatory Hearing
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's conduct as an expert witness — including concealment of his financial relationship with the coal bed methane company and use of government credentials to enhance credibility — called into serious question his understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer and his independence as an expert.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, in serving as an expert witness at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions rather than adopting the role of advocate for the private coal bed methane company whose interests were at stake in the water discharge permit regulatory proceeding.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer
temporalscope: Duration of expert witness testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.197250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Engineer A State Y Regulatory Testimony
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by a coal bed methane company to testify at a regulatory hearing on proposed discharge permit rules — a context in which the company had a direct financial interest in the regulatory outcome — creating pressure to advocate rather than provide independent technical opinion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from adopting the role of an advocate for the retaining coal bed methane company in his regulatory testimony, and was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions rather than opinions aligned with the adversarial interests of his private retaining client.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional independence provisions; engineer non-advocate principle
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: Throughout testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits.
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.189606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineering-Licensure-Law-StateX-StateY
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: State X and State Y legislatures / licensing boards
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State X and State Y Engineering Licensure Laws
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
usedby: Engineer A in his opening testimony disclosure; BER in evaluating the adequacy of his credential disclosures
usedincontext: Relevant to Engineer A's disclosure that he is licensed only in State X and not in State Y, establishing the jurisdictional licensure context for his testimony before a State Y regulatory body.
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.179610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Engineer A State X Only Licensure
type: ExpertTestimonyLicensureDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A did disclose his State X-only licensure status, partially satisfying this constraint, but then proceeded to display U.S. DOE credentials in a manner that may have substituted an implied authority for the missing State Y licensure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to disclose his licensure status — licensed only in State X, not State Y — at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, and was constrained from presenting engineering credentials that implied jurisdictional licensure compliance in State Y.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State engineering practice acts; NSPE Code; regulatory and legal constraint on expert testimony licensure
sourcetext: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X.
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.
textreferences: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.190196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Irresolvable Conflict Recognition Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
type: ExtremeSame-DomainDual-RoleIrresolvableConflictRecognitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board characterized the present case as 'a more extreme example' than the adjacent-domain conflicts in BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8, establishing that exact same-domain identity creates an irresolvable rather than merely manageable conflict.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Irresolvable Conflict Recognition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between his U.S. DOE coal bed methane division employment and his private coal bed methane consulting represented an extreme conflict of interest that was virtually impossible to resolve through ordinary disclosure or consent mechanisms, making the dual engagement categorically impermissible rather than merely subject to disclosure.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type
temporalscope: Duration of simultaneous DOE coal bed methane employment and private coal bed methane consulting
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type
textreferences: Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Financial Sponsorship Revealed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: DOE_Employee_Ethics_Violation_Constraint
activates constraint: PE_Board_Disciplinary_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Misconduct_Investigation_Constraint
activates constraint: Regulatory_Proceeding_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: The concealed financial relationship becomes public knowledge; Engineer A's testimony is retrospectively recharacterized as paid advocacy; all institutional actors, PE board, DOE, State Y council, are now on notice of potential misconduct
concept category: Event
creates obligation: BER_Ethics_Case_Review
creates obligation: DOE_Internal_Ethics_Investigation
creates obligation: PE_Board_Review_of_Conduct
creates obligation: Potential_Reopening_of_Regulatory_Record
creates obligation: Public_Accounting_for_Testimony_Basis
emergency status: critical
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After the hearing; subsequent to newspaper report
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: critical
comment: It was subsequently revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the State Y hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, publicly exposing the concealed financial relationship between the witness and the regulated industry.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Government Credential Conflation Private Retained Testimony Prohibition Engineer A DOE PowerPoint
type: GovernmentCredentialConflationinPrivateRetainedTestimonyProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's PowerPoint listed his U.S. DOE job title and he stated his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, while never disclosing his private retainer — resulting in a newspaper article identifying him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' rather than a privately retained consultant.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Government Credential Conflation in Private Retained Testimony Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from displaying his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and invoking his DOE employment at the outset of testimony while concealing that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, as this created the materially misleading impression that he was testifying in an official government capacity rather than as a privately retained consultant.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; faithful agent provisions; conflict of interest disclosure standards
sourcetext: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.
temporalscope: Throughout the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.190391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Government Employer Resource Non-Use Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Private Testimony
type: GovernmentEmployerResourceNon-UseinPrivateConsultingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used the same PowerPoint presentation — bearing U.S. DOE identification — in both his government role and his private consulting testimony, illustrating the problem of drawing a line between government and private activities.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Government Employer Resource Non-Use in Private Consulting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from using a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification and branding in his private consulting testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, as this constituted use of government-developed or government-branded resources in the performance of private consulting work, in violation of his faithful agent duty and the prohibition on using public resources for private commercial benefit.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 02-8 (caution on public resources); BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
textreferences: the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Government Employment Credential Non-Conflation Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Testimony
type: GovernmentEmploymentCredentialNon-ConflationinPrivateTestimonyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying at a regulatory hearing, the attendance at which was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, creating a misleading impression of official government endorsement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Government Employment Credential Non-Conflation in Private Testimony Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from displaying his U.S. DOE job title and institutional affiliation in his PowerPoint presentation while testifying at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on behalf of a private coal bed methane company, as this conflated his government credentials with his private consulting testimony and created a misleading impression that he was testifying in an official government capacity.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, II.3; BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
type: GovernmentalEmployeePrivateConsultingSame-DomainProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A held a position with the U.S. DOE working in the coal bed methane arena while simultaneously providing consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies, creating a same-domain dual employment conflict.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from simultaneously serving as a U.S. DOE employee in the coal bed methane division and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, as the identity of subject matter between the governmental role and the private consulting engagement creates an irresolvable conflict of interest breaching faithful agency to the government employer.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 07-12; faithful agent provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of simultaneous U.S. DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.191139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance Dual Employment Engineer A DOE Private Consulting
type: GovernmentalEmployeePrivateConsultingSame-DomainProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board cautioned in BER Case 02-8 that engineers in dual roles must carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies, a caution that applied with even greater force in the present same-domain case.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and ethics regulations governing dual employment before engaging in any private consulting activities, including obtaining any required approvals and ensuring compliance with federal ethics rules applicable to DOE employees performing outside work.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 02-8 (caution on governmental procedures); BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
temporalscope: Prior to and throughout any private consulting activities concurrent with DOE employment
textreferences: the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.197386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

I.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

II.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

II.3.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

II.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

III.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

III.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Self-Approval Conflict Abstention Failure
type: Same-DomainGovernment-PrivateDualRoleConflictAbstentionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Abstention Capability
capabilitystatement: John Doe failed to exercise the capability to recognize that simultaneously serving as county engineer, county planning board member, and private consulting engineer — and preparing plans he would then recommend and vote to approve — created an irreconcilable conflict requiring abstention
casecontext: BER Case No. 67-1 — John Doe's actions as county engineer, planning board member, and private consulting engineer in the same subdivision development project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Preparing subdivision plans as a consulting engineer, recommending approval as county engineer, and voting to approve as a planning board member — a triple-role conflict the Board found 'abundantly clear' to violate the NSPE Code
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:46.123769+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: John Doe
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: In his capacity as an engineer in private practice, Doe had prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.198677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

John Doe preparing subdivision plans as consulting engineer (BER 67-1) before John Doe recommending approval as county engineer (BER 67-1)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
from entity text: John Doe preparing subdivision plans as consulting engineer (BER 67-1)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: John Doe recommending approval as county engineer (BER 67-1)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: John Doe recommending approval as county engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

John Doe recommending approval as county engineer (BER 67-1) before John Doe voting to approve plans as planning board member (BER 67-1)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans
from entity text: John Doe recommending approval as county engineer (BER 67-1)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: John Doe voting to approve plans as planning board member (BER 67-1)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: John Doe voting to approve plans as planning board
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.200019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf'
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company
usedby: Engineer A (obligation bearer); BER (analytical authority)
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations to disclose his consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies, avoid deceptive conduct, and accurately represent his affiliations during regulatory testimony in State Y.
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.178895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics (Dual Employment / Faithful Agent Context)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: the Board indicated that it believed, based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as the primary normative authority establishing that Engineer A's dual role as a U.S. DOE employee and private consultant in the same technical domain (coal bed methane) constitutes a violation of the faithful agent and trustee obligation
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.178307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Negligent vs. Intentional Government Credential Misuse Non-Exculpation Engineer A DOE PowerPoint
type: Negligentvs.IntentionalGovernmentCredentialMisuseNon-ExculpationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly addressed the negligence-vs-intent question and concluded that the ethical impropriety attached regardless of mental state, establishing a strict-liability-like standard for government credential conflation in private testimony.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Negligent vs. Intentional Government Credential Misuse Non-Exculpation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's use of the U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation in his private consulting testimony was ethically impermissible regardless of whether the use was a negligent careless error or an intentional effort to enhance credibility — in either case the conduct was entirely inappropriate and constituted an ethical violation that could not be excused by claims of inadvertence.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony
textreferences: However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Newspaper Misidentification Published
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Correction_of_Public_Misrepresentation_Obligation
activates constraint: DOE_Institutional_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Record_Accuracy_Constraint
causes state change: Misinformation enters permanent public record; the false narrative of government-endorsed testimony is now documented and disseminated to the broader public beyond the hearing room
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Clarify_Personal_vs_Official_Capacity_Publicly
creates obligation: Issue_Public_Correction_of_Misidentification
creates obligation: Notify_DOE_of_Public_Misrepresentation
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: high
comment: Following the hearing, a newspaper reported Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' publicly cementing the false impression that his testimony carried official government authority rather than representing privately compensated consulting advocacy.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Omitting Consulting Relationship Disclosure
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: expert witness, private consultant
foreseen unintended effects: Paying client's interests would be advanced under false pretense of objectivity
foreseen unintended effects: Regulatory body and public would be deprived of material information needed to evaluate testimony
foreseen unintended effects: Testimony would be received as more independent and objective than it actually was
fulfills obligation text: Disclosure of government employer
fulfills obligation text: Partial disclosure of licensure jurisdiction
guided by principle text: Candor before regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies
guided by principle text: Honesty and full disclosure in professional testimony
guided by principle text: Public welfare over private client interest
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Establish professional credentials while avoiding disclosure of financial relationship with industry that could undermine credibility or raise conflict of interest concerns before the regulatory body
requires capability text: Expert witness testimony in coal bed methane regulation
requires capability text: Professional ethics judgment regarding conflicts of interest
requires capability text: Understanding of disclosure obligations before regulatory bodies
temporal marker: During the opening of testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: Full and honest disclosure of all material conflicts of interest to the regulatory body
violates obligation text: Obligation not to misrepresent or omit facts material to evaluation of professional opinion
violates obligation text: Obligation of candor and transparency as an expert witness
violates obligation text: Obligation to protect the public interest by enabling informed regulatory decision-making
within competence: true
comment: During his opening testimony, Engineer A disclosed his PE licensure in State X and his DOE employment but deliberately or negligently failed to disclose his private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies, including the company that retained and paid him to testify.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.196845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Omitting Consulting Relationship Disclosure (Action 3) → Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6) and Ethical Violation Established
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: During his opening testimony, Engineer A disclosed his PE licensure and DOE employment but omitted disclosure of his consulting relationship with the retaining company, which was subsequently revealed, establishing the foundation for ethical review under precedent from BER Case 67-1
cause: Omitting Consulting Relationship Disclosure (Action 3)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A disclosed the retainer relationship during opening testimony, the ethical violation related to non-disclosure would not have occurred, though the underlying conflict of interest would still require scrutiny
effect: Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6) and Ethical Violation Established
necessary factors: Applicable professional ethics standards requiring conflict disclosure
necessary factors: Engineer A's active decision not to disclose the retainer relationship
necessary factors: Engineer A's role as a testifying expert before a public regulatory body
necessary factors: Existence of a material financial conflict of interest
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Undisclosed financial retainer + expert testimony before regulatory body + subsequent revelation = sufficient basis for ethical violation finding under NSPE Code and BER Case 67-1 precedent
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

PE Licensure Disclosed at Hearing
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Completeness_of_Credential_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthfulness_in_Public_Statements_Constraint
causes state change: Hearing body receives partial credential picture; selective disclosure creates false impression of Engineer A as a disinterested government-affiliated expert
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Complete_Disclosure_of_All_Relevant_Affiliations
creates obligation: Disclose_Private_Consulting_Relationships
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: During testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, Engineer A disclosed his Professional Engineer licensure in State X, providing partial but selectively incomplete credentials to the hearing body.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Public-Safety-Standards-Hearing-Participation-Framework-Instance
type: PublicSafetyStandardsHearingParticipationFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE BER precedent and regulatory hearing norms
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
sourcetext: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
usedby: BER in framing the regulatory hearing context and Engineer A's obligations as a technical witness
usedincontext: Provides the procedural and normative framework for Engineer A's participation as a technical witness before the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed coal bed methane discharge permit rules, including ethical obligations applicable to engineers testifying in such proceedings.
version: As applied to environmental regulatory hearings
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.179334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard (Federal DOE Context)
type: PublicOfficialConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics / professional ethics norms
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to Engineer A's role as a U.S. DOE employee in the coal bed methane division who simultaneously performed private consulting in the same technical domain, establishing that this creates a direct and irreconcilable conflict of interest
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.183364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.693037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.693068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.693096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.691850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.688689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A's display of his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation — without clarifying that he was testifying as a private consultant paid by a coal bed methane company — constitute an intentional misrepresentation, or merely a negligent failure to segregate his professional identities, and does that distinction affect the ethical severity of his conduct?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Was Engineer A's response — 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — when asked whether he represented the U.S. DOE a technically true but materially misleading statement that violated his honesty obligations, given that it strategically omitted his paid retainer relationship with the coal bed methane company?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Did Engineer A's simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher and private consultant for coal bed methane companies constitute a breach of his faithful agent obligation to the DOE, and should he have obtained explicit DOE authorization before accepting private consulting work in the same technical domain?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: To what extent did the newspaper's subsequent identification of Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' — rather than as a paid industry consultant — demonstrate that his testimony created a foreseeable and material misimpression in the public record, thereby implicating his obligations to the public interest beyond his duties to the regulatory body?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to serve as a expert witness under the circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.688768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation to Engineer A's DOE employer — which demands that he not engage in outside work detrimental to his government role — conflict with his Objectivity Obligation as an expert witness, given that accepting a private retainer from an industry his agency regulates simultaneously compromises both duties, and can either obligation be satisfied while the other is being violated?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Government Affiliation Material Accuracy — which requires that Engineer A's DOE credentials be represented truthfully — conflict with the principle of Conflict of Interest Disclosure, in that accurately presenting his DOE title without simultaneously disclosing his industry retainer creates a more misleading impression than either omission alone would produce?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Licensure Disclosure principle — satisfied when Engineer A disclosed at the outset that he was licensed only in State X — create a false sense of procedural compliance that tensions with the Capacity Clarity Failure principle, in that partial transparency about one credential dimension (licensure) may have actively obscured the more ethically significant omission regarding his paid industry relationship?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation principle — prohibiting Engineer A from leveraging his DOE identity to lend unearned credibility to private testimony — conflict with the Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work principle in a compounding way, such that using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in private testimony simultaneously violates both principles, and should the Board treat such compounding violations as categorically more serious than either violation in isolation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of honesty when they answered 'I am testifying on my own behalf' without disclosing their financial retainer from the coal bed methane company, given that this statement was technically true but structurally designed to mislead the regulatory body about their actual capacity and interests?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the aggregate harm produced by Engineer A's testimony — including the newspaper's misidentification of a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' the distortion of the regulatory record, and the erosion of public trust in government-affiliated expert witnesses — outweigh any benefit the coal bed methane company or the regulatory process might have derived from Engineer A's technical expertise?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of integrity and objectivity when they displayed their U.S. DOE job title throughout their PowerPoint presentation while simultaneously concealing a private financial retainer from the very industry whose regulatory permits were under review, and does this pattern of conduct reflect the character of an engineer who genuinely internalizes professional ethical standards or one who strategically deploys credentials for client advantage?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A breach their duty as a faithful agent to the U.S. Department of Energy by accepting private consulting retainers in the same coal bed methane domain in which they perform their federal duties, and does this breach exist independently of whether the DOE was aware of or consented to the arrangement, given that the duty of non-exploitation of government affiliation is categorical rather than conditional on employer knowledge?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had affirmatively disclosed at the outset of their testimony that they were retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company, and had explicitly distinguished their personal consulting capacity from their U.S. DOE employment, would the State Y Environmental Quality Council have been able to appropriately weigh the testimony, and would the subsequent newspaper misidentification and public trust harm have been avoided?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.689989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had declined the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely and instead testified solely in a personal technical capacity without any financial relationship to the regulated industry, would their testimony have been ethically permissible despite their U.S. DOE employment in the same domain, or does the same-domain dual-role conflict render any such testimony ethically problematic regardless of the absence of direct compensation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had used a presentation that contained no U.S. DOE branding or job title identification — presenting only their personal technical credentials and explicitly noting their consulting relationship with the coal bed methane company — would the ethical violations related to government credential conflation have been resolved, and would any remaining ethical concerns about the dual-role same-domain conflict still have been sufficient to render their participation as expert witness impermissible?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the State Y Environmental Quality Council had adopted a formal pre-testimony disclosure requirement mandating that all expert witnesses declare any financial relationships with regulated industries before testifying, would Engineer A's conduct have constituted a procedural violation in addition to an ethical one, and does the absence of such a formal requirement diminish or eliminate Engineer A's independent ethical obligation to disclose the retainer relationship under the NSPE Code?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.690182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Regulatory-Testimony-Affiliation-Disclosure-Standard-Instance
type: RegulatoryTestimonyAffiliationDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics principles; regulatory hearing norms
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's conduct before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
usedincontext: Directly applicable to Engineer A's conduct in displaying his DOE title prominently while omitting his paid consulting relationship with the coal bed methane company, creating a false public impression of government-neutral expertise.
version: Derived from NSPE Code and BER precedent
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.179175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard (DOE Expert Witness Context)
type: RegulatoryTestimonyAffiliationDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics norms
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:20.699231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
textreferences: it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to Engineer A's use of a U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation while testifying at a hearing paid for by a private coal bed methane company, raising questions about whether he was misrepresenting his affiliation and creating a false impression of official government endorsement
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.176980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.688805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.686976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:48:29.687070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

State Y Environmental Quality Council Regulatory Authority
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'State regulatory/administrative body', 'function': 'Rulemaking for environmental quality, including coal bed methane discharge permits', 'jurisdiction': 'State Y'}
caseinvolvement: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducted the administrative hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits and received Engineer A's testimony. As the regulatory body, it was the audience misled by Engineer A's incomplete disclosures regarding his retaining party and consulting relationships.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulates', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company Client'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.179741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing before newspaper article reporting Engineer A as 'U.S. DOE researcher'
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Later, a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
from entity text: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: newspaper article reporting Engineer A as 'U.S. DOE researcher'
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: newspaper article reporting Engineer A as U S DO
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Engineer A Own Behalf Response
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingOmissionRegulatoryTestimonyProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: When asked whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A responded 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — a statement that was technically true in that he was not officially representing the DOE, but materially misleading in that it concealed his private retainer from the coal bed methane company.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as this technically true but materially misleading statement concealed his private retainer relationship with the coal bed methane company and exploited literal truth to evade the spirit of the disclosure question.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; duty of complete and non-misleading disclosure in regulatory proceedings
sourcetext: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
temporalscope: At the end of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council when directly questioned about testimony capacity
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.190716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Response
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingOmissionRegulatoryTestimonyProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's claim to be testifying 'on his own behalf' was technically true in that he was not formally retained as a named expert, but was materially misleading because his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company with a direct financial interest in the regulatory outcome.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' in a manner that was technically true in a narrow literal sense but materially misleading by omission, given that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company — the duty of non-deception required a complete and non-misleading disclosure of all material relationships rather than exploitation of literal truth to conceal a financially interested capacity.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, II.3; BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
textreferences: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.197109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Company
type: UndisclosedPrivateRetainerRegulatoryTestimonyProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A never disclosed during his testimony that he was retained and compensated by a coal bed methane company, despite providing technical testimony on proposed rules directly affecting coal bed methane discharge permits — a matter in which his private client had a direct financial interest.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council without affirmatively disclosing at the outset that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business, as this financial relationship was material information the regulatory body was entitled to know in order to properly evaluate the independence and potential bias of his testimony.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard; non-deception provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the outset of and throughout testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.190549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Company Payment
type: UndisclosedPrivateRetainerRegulatoryTestimonyProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's attendance at the regulatory hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, yet he testified in a manner suggesting he was appearing on his own behalf, concealing the financial retainer relationship from the regulatory body.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council without affirmatively disclosing that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, as this financial retainer relationship was material information that the regulatory body was entitled to know in order to properly evaluate the independence and potential bias of his testimony.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:25:29.521830+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, II.3, III.2; BER Case No. 07-12
sourcetext: Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
textreferences: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.191321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Using DOE-Branded Presentation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: U.S. DOE employee and private consultant
foreseen unintended effects: Audience and press would associate testimony with official DOE position
foreseen unintended effects: Government imprimatur would lend unwarranted credibility to privately paid advocacy
foreseen unintended effects: Misrepresentation of the capacity in which Engineer A was testifying
guided by principle text: Avoidance of deceptive practices
guided by principle text: Clear separation of public and private professional roles
guided by principle text: Honesty and transparency in public testimony
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate or negligent (ambiguous per discussion)
intended outcome: Present technical credentials and background; potentially enhance credibility of testimony through association with U.S. DOE
requires capability text: Ability to prepare and present technical material accurately
requires capability text: Awareness of professional ethics obligations in expert testimony
requires capability text: Judgment to distinguish official from private capacity
temporal marker: Prior to and during the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Faithful agent obligation to U.S. DOE by associating its name with private advocacy
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid misrepresentation of professional affiliation or authority
violates obligation text: Obligation to be honest and not mislead in professional communications
violates obligation text: Obligation to clearly disclose the capacity in which testimony is offered
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A chose to use a PowerPoint presentation displaying his U.S. DOE job title when testifying in a private consulting capacity, implicitly lending government credibility to testimony for which he was privately compensated by an industry client.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.195758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Using DOE-Branded Presentation (Action 2) → Newspaper Misidentification Published (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A chose to use a PowerPoint presentation displaying his U.S. DOE job title when testifying, which, combined with the DOE-branded PowerPoint, led to a newspaper reporting Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' publicly cementing the misidentification
cause: Using DOE-Branded Presentation (Action 2)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A used unbranded personal materials and clearly stated his personal capacity upfront, misidentification would have been substantially less likely
effect: Newspaper Misidentification Published (Event 5)
necessary factors: Absence of clear disclaimer that testimony was personal, not official DOE position
necessary factors: Media presence at or reporting on the hearing
necessary factors: Simultaneous disclosure of DOE employment title
necessary factors: Use of DOE-branded presentation materials during testimony
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: DOE-branded materials + DOE title disclosure + no clear capacity disclaimer = reasonable basis for media to identify Engineer A as official DOE representative
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure Engineer A State Y Hearing
type: VerbalEngineeringTestimonyJurisdictionalLicensureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X, not State Y, yet proceeded to provide technical testimony at a State Y regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permit rules.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from providing engineering testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing without holding licensure in State Y, as verbal engineering input at a public regulatory hearing where a board relies on such input in its decision-making likely constitutes the practice of engineering in that jurisdiction.
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:18:26.905628+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Y Engineering Practice Act; NSPE Code; BER interpretation of engineering practice in regulatory hearings
sourcetext: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X.
temporalscope: At the time of testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X.
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.190005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Water-Discharge-Permit-Regulation-CoalBedMethane
type: WaterDischargePermitRegulation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: State Y Environmental Quality Council
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Y Coal Bed Methane Discharge Permit Rules (Proposed)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:03.386799+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Water Discharge Permit Regulation
sourcetext: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
usedby: State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regulatory framework under development; Engineer A as the technical subject of his testimony
usedincontext: The substantive regulatory subject matter of the hearing at which Engineer A testified, establishing the public interest context and the regulatory stakes that make Engineer A's undisclosed conflict of interest ethically significant.
version: Proposed rules at time of hearing
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.177348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309342+00:00
value: The conflict is not resolved by the engineer's personal disclaimer ('on my own behalf') because the structural overlap between the governmental and private roles creates an inherent appearance of impropriety that cannot be cured by verbal disclaimer alone

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307147+00:00
value: The integrity of the public regulatory record and the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately requires disclosure of financial relationships; the engineer's personal characterization of testimony ('on my own behalf') does not satisfy this obligation when the financial relationship remains undisclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.304234+00:00
value: The regulatory body's and public's interest in knowing the financial basis of expert testimony overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship, particularly where the relationship is directly material to assessing the objectivity of the testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308867+00:00
value: The regulatory body's and public's interest in knowing the financial basis of expert testimony overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship, particularly where the relationship is directly material to assessing the objectivity of the testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306208+00:00
value: The regulatory body's and public's interest in knowing the financial basis of expert testimony overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship, particularly where the relationship is directly material to assessing the objectivity of the testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.304802+00:00
value: The accountability obligation requires affirmative separation; passive non-use is insufficient when the dual roles create structural opportunities for resource conflation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309694+00:00
value: The engineer may legitimately disclose governmental employment as a credential, but must affirmatively counteract any misleading impression of governmental backing by clearly identifying the private consulting capacity and financial relationship at the outset of testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307784+00:00
value: The Board found no distinction between negligent and intentional misrepresentation for purposes of ethical violation — both are 'entirely inappropriate'

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.305002+00:00
value: The conflict is not resolved by the engineer's personal disclaimer ('on my own behalf') because the structural overlap between the governmental and private roles creates an inherent appearance of impropriety that cannot be cured by verbal disclaimer alone

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308111+00:00
value: No competing principle justifies the ambiguity; the Board found the overall conduct called into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306850+00:00
value: No competing principle justifies the ambiguity; the Board found the overall conduct called into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309584+00:00
value: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307707+00:00
value: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307060+00:00
value: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.303572+00:00
value: No balancing available; the Board characterized the breach as clear and the conflict as virtually irreconcilable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307394+00:00
value: No balancing available; the Board characterized the breach as clear and the conflict as virtually irreconcilable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.304647+00:00
value: The Board found no justification for the conflation; the exploitation of governmental affiliation is impermissible regardless of intent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307896+00:00
value: The Board found no justification for the conflation; the exploitation of governmental affiliation is impermissible regardless of intent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309474+00:00
value: The Board found that the potential for conflict and appearance issues outweighed the engineer's interest in private consulting, even assuming employer awareness and non-objection

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308586+00:00
value: Board held that even mutual awareness does not eliminate the ethical violation arising from the structural conflict

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308182+00:00
value: The regulatory body's and public's interest in knowing the financial basis of expert testimony overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship, particularly where the relationship is directly material to assessing the objectivity of the testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309284+00:00
value: The accountability obligation requires affirmative separation; passive non-use is insufficient when the dual roles create structural opportunities for resource conflation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308042+00:00
value: The accountability obligation requires affirmative separation; passive non-use is insufficient when the dual roles create structural opportunities for resource conflation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.303976+00:00
value: Financial relationship disclosure obligation overrides any interest in maintaining the appearance of personal testimony independence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309157+00:00
value: Objectivity as a professional virtue requires disclosure of conditions that compromise or appear to compromise independence; the engineer's subjective belief in his own objectivity does not satisfy the principle's requirement for structural transparency

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306419+00:00
value: The integrity of the public regulatory record and the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately requires disclosure of financial relationships; the engineer's personal characterization of testimony ('on my own behalf') does not satisfy this obligation when the financial relationship remains undisclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306314+00:00
value: Financial relationship disclosure obligation overrides any interest in maintaining the appearance of personal testimony independence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308946+00:00
value: No balancing available; the Board characterized the breach as clear and the conflict as virtually irreconcilable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307475+00:00
value: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.305370+00:00
value: The Board found that the potential for conflict and appearance issues outweighed the engineer's interest in private consulting, even assuming employer awareness and non-objection

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308520+00:00
value: The Board found that the potential for conflict and appearance issues outweighed the engineer's interest in private consulting, even assuming employer awareness and non-objection

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309100+00:00
value: The regulatory body's and public's interest in knowing the financial basis of expert testimony overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship, particularly where the relationship is directly material to assessing the objectivity of the testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309023+00:00
value: Financial relationship disclosure obligation overrides any interest in maintaining the appearance of personal testimony independence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307229+00:00
value: Financial relationship disclosure obligation overrides any interest in maintaining the appearance of personal testimony independence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309212+00:00
value: The Board found no justification for the conflation; the exploitation of governmental affiliation is impermissible regardless of intent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309414+00:00
value: Compliance with the licensure disclosure obligation does not exhaust the engineer's credential transparency obligations; accurate licensure disclosure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for honest credential presentation when other material relationships remain undisclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306554+00:00
value: The principle requires that the regulatory body's interest in accurate credential context overrides any interest in not volunteering information about private consulting relationships when those relationships are directly material to assessing testimony objectivity

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.304454+00:00
value: Objectivity as a professional virtue requires disclosure of conditions that compromise or appear to compromise independence; the engineer's subjective belief in his own objectivity does not satisfy the principle's requirement for structural transparency

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308448+00:00
value: Objectivity obligation cannot be satisfied when the engineer is simultaneously employed by a government agency in the same domain and compensated by an interested private party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306940+00:00
value: Objectivity obligation cannot be satisfied when the engineer is simultaneously employed by a government agency in the same domain and compensated by an interested private party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.305231+00:00
value: Compliance with the licensure disclosure obligation does not exhaust the engineer's credential transparency obligations; accurate licensure disclosure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for honest credential presentation when other material relationships remain undisclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308804+00:00
value: Compliance with the licensure disclosure obligation does not exhaust the engineer's credential transparency obligations; accurate licensure disclosure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for honest credential presentation when other material relationships remain undisclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306069+00:00
value: The engineer may legitimately disclose governmental employment as a credential, but must affirmatively counteract any misleading impression of governmental backing by clearly identifying the private consulting capacity and financial relationship at the outset of testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307972+00:00
value: The engineer may legitimately disclose governmental employment as a credential, but must affirmatively counteract any misleading impression of governmental backing by clearly identifying the private consulting capacity and financial relationship at the outset of testimony

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.305959+00:00
value: The integrity of the public regulatory record and the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately requires disclosure of financial relationships; the engineer's personal characterization of testimony ('on my own behalf') does not satisfy this obligation when the financial relationship remains undisclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308281+00:00
value: Transparency obligation to the regulatory body overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship when that relationship is directly material to the regulatory proceeding

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309529+00:00
value: The Board found the conflict clear and unambiguous; no balancing was available given the direct identity between the preparer and the approver

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308722+00:00
value: The Board found the conflict clear and unambiguous; no balancing was available given the direct identity between the preparer and the approver

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.305566+00:00
value: The Board found the conflict clear and unambiguous; no balancing was available given the direct identity between the preparer and the approver

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308644+00:00
value: The Board found the conflict clear and unambiguous; no balancing was available given the direct identity between the preparer and the approver

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306761+00:00
value: The Board found the conflict clear and unambiguous; no balancing was available given the direct identity between the preparer and the approver

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.308375+00:00
value: Financial relationship disclosure obligation overrides any interest in maintaining the appearance of personal testimony independence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.305820+00:00
value: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307581+00:00
value: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.306671+00:00
value: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.309640+00:00
value: The integrity of the public regulatory record and the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately requires disclosure of financial relationships; the engineer's personal characterization of testimony ('on my own behalf') does not satisfy this obligation when the financial relationship remains undisclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:42:34.307310+00:00
value: The integrity of the public regulatory record and the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately requires disclosure of financial relationships; the engineer's personal characterization of testimony ('on my own behalf') does not satisfy this obligation when the financial relationship remains undisclosed

newspaper article publication before revelation that coal bed methane company paid for Engineer A's attendance
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Later, a newspaper article...and information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company
from entity text: newspaper article publication
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: revelation that coal bed methane company paid for Engineer A's attendance
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: revelation that coal bed methane company paid for
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.199518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Coal Bed Methane Company Client

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's failure to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry violated the transparency obligation owed to the State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regul

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company — the regulated industry whose permit rules were the subject of the hearing — creatin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits without disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, depri

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company that had a direct interest in the outcome of the proposed discharge permit rules, yet Engineer A characterized h

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, simultaneously performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies — the identical technical domain — making independent judgment and faithful agency to his gove

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane di

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X and not in State Y, satisfying the affirmative disclosure obligation for unlicensed jurisdiction testimony, though this disclosure alone was insufficie

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the impression of governmental authority and objectivity, while simultaneously testifying in a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, simultaneously employed by the U.S. DOE and consulting privately for coal bed methane companies, used DOE-branded presentation materials at a regulatory hearing while claiming to testify personally — exploiting his governmental

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company — the regulated industry whose permit rules were the subject of the hearing — creatin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was ambiguous as to capacity: he claimed to testify personally, yet his attendance was paid by a private coal bed methane company and his materials bore U.S. DOE id

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's objectivity as a regulatory witness was structurally compromised by his financial relationship with the coal bed methane industry whose permit rules were under consideration, yet he presented testimony in a manner that implied

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's simultaneous employment by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane domain and private consulting for coal bed methane companies whose interests were directly implicated by the State Y hearing rules fundamentally compromised his ab

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: John Doe, as county engineer, recommended approval of subdivision plans he had personally prepared as a private consultant, and then as a county planning board member voted to approve those same plans — constituting a paradigmatic self-revi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane di

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, simultaneously performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies — the identical technical domain — making independent judgment and faithful agency to his gove

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By privately consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed by the U.S. DOE in the same domain, Engineer A breached his fundamental obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee of his government employer, whose interests were

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, simultaneously employed by the U.S. DOE and consulting privately for coal bed methane companies, used DOE-branded presentation materials at a regulatory hearing while claiming to testify personally — exploiting his governmental

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the impression of governmental authority and objectivity, while simultaneously testifying in a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing municipal contracts, was approached to simultaneously perform part-time airport consulting for the same municipalities — creating a conflict through domain linkage between highways and a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board found that Engineer A's dual role violated the faithful agent and trustee obligation even where both the state agency and the private firm were aware of and did not object to the arrangeme

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: John Doe, as county engineer, recommended approval of subdivision plans he had personally prepared as a private consultant, and then as a county planning board member voted to approve those same plans — constituting a paradigmatic self-revi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's overall conduct — using government-branded materials while claiming personal testimony, accepting industry payment while denying organizational affiliation, and consulting privately in his government domain — collectively refle

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By prominently displaying his DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation without clarifying that he was testifying in a private consulting capacity paid for by the coal bed methane industry, Engineer A made representations about his profe

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's overall conduct — using government-branded materials while claiming personal testimony, accepting industry payment while denying organizational affiliation, and consulting privately in his government domain — collectively refle

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By prominently displaying his DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation without clarifying that he was testifying in a private consulting capacity paid for by the coal bed methane industry, Engineer A made representations about his profe

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's overall conduct — using government-branded materials while claiming personal testimony, accepting industry payment while denying organizational affiliation, and consulting privately in his government domain — collectively refle

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A disclosed his State X licensure and DOE employment but omitted disclosure of his private consulting role for coal bed methane companies, creating a misleading impression that his testimony represented governmental or personally d

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying in what appears to have been a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, whether through negligence or intent

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits without disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, depri

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's failure to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry violated the transparency obligation owed to the State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regul

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, simultaneously performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies — the identical technical domain — making independent judgment and faithful agency to his gove

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board cautioned Engineer A to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work — recognizing that dual-role engineers face specific accountability obligations regarding the s

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane di

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's failure to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry violated the transparency obligation owed to the State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regul

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company — the regulated industry whose permit rules were the subject of the hearing — creatin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his ongoing private consulting relationships with coal bed methane companies when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on proposed rules directly affecting that indus

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council at the outset of his testimony that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting busi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and ethics regulations governing dual employment before engaging in private consulting while employed by the U.S. DOE.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using U.S. DOE-developed or DOE-branded presentation materials in the performance of private consulting work, including testimony paid for by a private coal bed methane company.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as an employee of the U.S. DOE working in the coal bed methane division, was obligated to refrain from simultaneously performing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies in the same domain.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his non-licensure status in State Y at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, so that the regulatory body could assess the legal authority and jurisdi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and invoking his DOE employment at the outset of testimony without affirmatively clarifying that he was testifying in a private consul

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that he provides consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies — the same industry whose discharge permits were the subject of th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to comply with the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management by promptly disclosing his financial relationship with the coal bed methane company — including his compensation for attending the heari

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively and unambiguously clarify at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council whether he was testifying as a U.S. DOE employee in an official capacity or as a private con

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting represented a heightened ethical conflict that could not be managed through disclosure or employer conse

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing based on independent analysis, rather than functioning as an advocate for the coal bed methane ind

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: John Doe, as county engineer and county planning board member, was obligated to refrain from recommending and voting to approve subdivision plans that he had personally prepared in his private consulting capacity.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from simultaneously holding a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, as the identity of domains

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for his employer, the U.S. DOE, by refraining from private consulting activities in the same coal bed methane domain that directly conflicted with his governmental employer's i

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title and institutional affiliation in a manner that created a false impression of official governmental endorsement of testimony delivered in a private consulting capacit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer, was obligated to refrain from simultaneously performing private airport design consulting for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT, recognizing that highways and airports are in

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: John Doe was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the county by refraining from using his governmental positions to approve plans he had personally prepared in his private consulting capacity.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, without simultaneously disclosing that his attendance was compensated by a

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification when testifying in what appears to have been a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the capacity in which he was testifying — including affirmatively disclosing that his testimony was funded by a private coal bed methane company — and to refrain from presenting his DOE job t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making the technically true but materially misleading statement 'I am testifying on my own behalf' in response to a direct question about his testimonial capacity, when that statement omitted the dec

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the pro

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from claiming to testify 'on his own behalf' in a manner that was technically true but structured to create a false impression by omitting the decisive context that his attendance was paid for by a privat

Coal Bed Methane Company Client
type: Provider-ClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Regulatory Hearing Financial Disclosure — Engineer A Industry Payment
attributes: {'industry': 'Coal bed methane extraction', 'relationship_to_engineer': 'Retaining party and financial sponsor of testimony', 'stake_in_hearing': 'Direct regulatory interest in the proposed coal bed methane discharge permit rules'}
caseinvolvement: The coal bed methane company retained and financially compensated Engineer A to testify at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed discharge permit rules. The company's identity as the retaining party was not disclosed by Engineer A during testimony.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_regulation_by', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Provider-Client Role
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.176825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness
type: MisleadingCredentialedExpertWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Engineer A DOE Title Display
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer, State X only (not licensed in State Y)', 'employer': 'U.S. Department of Energy', 'consulting_clients': 'Coal bed methane companies', 'retaining_party_for_testimony': 'Coal bed methane company', 'specialty': 'Coal bed methane engineering', 'disclosure_failures': ['Did not disclose consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies', 'Did not disclose financial compensation from coal bed methane company for testimony', 'Displayed DOE job title in presentation, creating impression of governmental affiliation']}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A, licensed only in State X, testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being retained and paid by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business. He displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation, disclosed his State X licensure, but never disclosed that he consults for coal bed methane companies. When asked if he was testifying on behalf of DOE, he said 'on my own behalf,' yet a newspaper later identified him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' indicating his presentation created a misleading impression of governmental independence.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'U.S. Department of Energy'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifying_before', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf'
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
textreferences: a newspaper article reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.177519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER 02-8 Engineer A Highway-Airport Adjacent Domain Conflict
type: AdjacentDomainDualEmploymentLatentConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A was approached by former consulting firm to serve part-time on airport contracts while continuing State DOT employment
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Former consulting firm
affectedparties: Municipalities
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
stateclass: Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Latent Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous role as State DOT traffic engineer and part-time private consultant for airport design work with the same municipalities
terminatedby: Ethics finding that the arrangement would be unethical (conflict never formally resolved in the case facts)
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere
textreferences: it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
textreferences: there are clear ethical appearance issues that would presumably need to be addressed
triggeringevent: Former consulting firm approached Engineer A to seek municipal airport design contracts while Engineer A remained employed as State DOT traffic engineer
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.184417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Ambiguous Testimony Capacity at Regulatory Hearing
type: AmbiguousTestimonyCapacityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the regulatory hearing testimony
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Private coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory body
affectedparties: U.S. Department of Energy
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf
stateclass: Ambiguous Testimony Capacity State
subject: Engineer A's testimony at the regulatory hearing where his capacity (personal, government official, or private client representative) was unclear to all parties including himself
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; the ambiguity persisted through the hearing
textreferences: On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
textreferences: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf
triggeringevent: Engineer A testified at a regulatory hearing while simultaneously holding a DOE government role and having attendance paid by a private coal bed methane company, without clearly establishing his capacity
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.184936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting
type: Dual-RoleGovernment-PrivateConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer A Extreme Same-Domain Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Recognition Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance Dual Employment Failure
attributes: {'government_employer': 'U.S. Department of Energy', 'private_consulting_domain': 'Coal bed methane companies', 'conflict_type': 'Government affiliation leveraged to lend credibility to industry-funded testimony', 'disclosure_failure': 'Failed to disclose private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies during testimony'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A simultaneously holds a position with the U.S. Department of Energy in the coal bed methane arena and operates a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies. This dual role creates a structural conflict of interest, as his government employer identity was displayed in his regulatory testimony while he was actually being compensated by a private industry client.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'consulting_for', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'U.S. Department of Energy'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifying_before', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.177677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-State Testimony Licensure State
type: Out-of-StateLicensureOnlyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the commencement of Engineer A's testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council through the conclusion of the hearing
affectedparties: Coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Y Environmental Quality Council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
stateclass: Out-of-State Licensure Only State
subject: Engineer A's licensure status relative to State Y regulatory hearing
terminatedby: Conclusion of testimony at State Y hearing
textreferences: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
triggeringevent: Engineer A's retention to testify in State Y while holding licensure only in State X
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.180084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A State Y Council Membership Conflict
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing during Engineer A's service on State X Environmental Quality Council concurrent with private consulting for coal bed methane companies
affectedparties: Coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State X Environmental Quality Council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's membership on State X Environmental Quality Council while testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company before State Y's equivalent body
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council
triggeringevent: Engineer A's service on State X Environmental Quality Council while simultaneously consulting for coal bed methane companies subject to environmental quality regulation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.183015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness
type: UnlicensedJurisdictionExpertWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony Invoked By Engineer A State Y Appearance
has obligation: Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A State Y Non-Licensure
attributes: {'licensed_jurisdiction': 'State X', 'testifying_jurisdiction': 'State Y', 'disclosure_made': 'Yes — Engineer A stated at the outset that he was licensed only in State X', 'residual_concern': 'Whether performing engineering analysis and testimony in State Y without State Y licensure constitutes unlicensed practice'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A testified before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits, but holds a professional engineering license only in State X, not in State Y where the hearing took place. He did disclose this limitation at the outset of his testimony.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:09.140230+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifying_before', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.178749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
type: CountyEngineerPlanningBoardMember
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Self-Review Prohibition — John Doe County Engineer Planning Board
has obligation: John Doe County Engineer Faithful Agent Breach Self-Approval
has obligation: John Doe County Engineer Self-Review Planning Board Vote Violation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'government_role': 'County Engineer and County Planning Board Member', 'private_role': 'Part-time consulting engineer'}
caseinvolvement: Served simultaneously as county engineer, county planning board member, and part-time private consulting engineer; prepared subdivision plans in private capacity, recommended their approval as county engineer, and voted to approve them as planning board member — found to be in violation of NSPE Code of Ethics (BER Case No. 67-1).
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'authority', 'target': 'County Planning Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Subdivision Development Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'County Government'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: County Engineer Planning Board Member
sourcetext: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
textreferences: As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board.
textreferences: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.183525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

BER 67-1 Doe County Engineer Self-Approval Conflict
type: GovernmentRoleSelf-ApprovalofPrivateWorkState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Doe prepared subdivision plans in private capacity through his recommendation and vote as county engineer and planning board member
affectedparties: County planning board
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Subdivision developer client
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
stateclass: Government Role Self-Approval of Private Work State
subject: Engineer Doe's simultaneous role as consulting engineer (plan preparer) and county engineer/planning board member (plan approver)
terminatedby: Ethics finding (the conflict was never properly resolved during the events)
textreferences: As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
textreferences: he would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer
triggeringevent: Doe prepared subdivision development plans as a consulting engineer while simultaneously serving as county engineer and planning board member
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.184184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict
type: DualPublic-PrivateEmploymentConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing throughout Engineer A's employment at U.S. DOE and concurrent private consulting practice; specifically active during State Y hearing testimony
affectedparties: Coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Y Environmental Quality Council
affectedparties: U.S. Department of Energy
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
stateclass: Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous role as U.S. DOE employee and private consultant for coal bed methane companies
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
triggeringevent: Engineer A's acceptance of consulting retainer from coal bed methane company while employed by U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.182148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Government Credential Conflation in Testimony
type: GovernmentEmployerCredentialConflationinRetainedTestimonyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During Engineer A's testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
affectedparties: Coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Y Environmental Quality Council
affectedparties: U.S. Department of Energy
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
stateclass: Government Employer Credential Conflation in Retained Testimony State
subject: Engineer A's display of U.S. DOE title in testimony materials while testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company
terminatedby: Revelation through newspaper article and subsequent disclosure that attendance was paid by coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf'
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
triggeringevent: Engineer A's inclusion of U.S. DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation and failure to clarify that testimony was on behalf of private client
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.182349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Shared PowerPoint Dual-Role Boundary Erosion
type: SharedPresentationMaterialDual-RoleBoundaryErosionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During and immediately surrounding the regulatory hearing at which Engineer A testified
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Private coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Public audience at hearing
affectedparties: Regulatory body
affectedparties: U.S. Department of Energy
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
stateclass: Shared Presentation Material Dual-Role Boundary Erosion State
subject: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation containing U.S. DOE identification in both government and private consulting contexts
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
textreferences: it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony
triggeringevent: Engineer A presented a PowerPoint bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying at a regulatory hearing with attendance paid by a private coal bed methane company
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.184772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
type: StateDOTEngineerConcurrentAirportConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Dual-Role Public-Private Conflict — Engineer A State DOT Airport Case
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation — Engineer A DOT Dual Role
adheres to principle: Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work — Engineer A DOT Advisory
has obligation: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Interrelated Domain Conflict Violation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'government_role': 'State DOT Traffic Engineer', 'private_role': 'Part-time airport design consultant for former firm'}
caseinvolvement: Served as a traffic engineer for the State DOT while being approached to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT on highway matters; Board found this arrangement unethical due to conflict of interest and faithful agent obligations (BER Case No. 02-8).
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Private Consulting Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_client', 'target': 'Municipalities (airport improvements)'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: State DOT Engineer Concurrent Airport Consultant
sourcetext: Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
textreferences: Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
textreferences: Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements
textreferences: it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.183673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Credential Presentation Accuracy Invoked By Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
type: CredentialPresentationAccuracyinTestimonialContexts
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Confidentiality of consulting relationships
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A disclosed his State X licensure and DOE employment but omitted disclosure of his private consulting role for coal bed methane companies, creating a misleading impression that his testimony represented governmental or personally disinterested expertise rather than industry-retained consulting opinion
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Credential presentation accuracy requires not merely disclosing credentials that exist, but ensuring the overall impression conveyed to the regulatory body accurately reflects the capacity in which the engineer is testifying; selective disclosure of governmental affiliation while omitting private consulting relationship violates this principle
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
invokedby: Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness
principleclass: Credential Presentation Accuracy in Testimonial Contexts
sourcetext: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
tensionresolution: The principle requires that the regulatory body's interest in accurate credential context overrides any interest in not volunteering information about private consulting relationships when those relationships are directly material to assessing testimony objectivity
textreferences: Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.183191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Industry Consulting Relationship Disclosure State Y Hearing Violation
type: IndustryConsultingRelationshipAffirmativeDisclosureinRegulatoryTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A testified before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on coal bed methane discharge permit rules without disclosing that he operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, creating a false impression of independent expert opinion.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
derived from principle: Transparency Principle Invoked By Engineer A Concealed Compensation
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his ongoing private consulting relationships with coal bed methane companies when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on proposed rules directly affecting that industry.
sourcetext: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.194249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation — Engineer A DOT Dual Role
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's proposed part-time airport consulting while employed by State DOT
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board found that Engineer A's dual role violated the faithful agent and trustee obligation even where both the state agency and the private firm were aware of and did not object to the arrangement
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Employer awareness and non-objection do not cure a faithful agent violation when the structural conflict of interest remains; the engineer's obligation runs to the integrity of the role, not merely to avoiding employer complaint
invokedby: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here
tensionresolution: Board held that even mutual awareness does not eliminate the ethical violation arising from the structural conflict
textreferences: assuming both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm are aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and do not object to these activities, the Board indicated that it believed, based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.191473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Government Affiliation Material Accuracy — Engineer A PowerPoint
type: GovernmentAffiliationPresentationAccuracyinPrivateConsultingTestimony
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's testimony at State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying in what appears to have been a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, whether through negligence or intentional effort to enhance credibility
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Regardless of whether the misrepresentation was negligent or intentional, the use of government-branded materials in a private consulting context is impermissible because it misleads the regulatory body and public about the source and authority of the testimony
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
principleclass: Government Affiliation Presentation Accuracy in Private Consulting Testimony
sourcetext: in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE
tensionresolution: The Board found no distinction between negligent and intentional misrepresentation for purposes of ethical violation — both are 'entirely inappropriate'
textreferences: An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony.
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
textreferences: However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.191690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Engineer A State Y Hearing
type: RegulatoryHearingFinancialRelationshipDisclosureEngineerAStateYHearing
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company, but never disclosed this financial relationship during his testimony.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Regulatory Hearing Financial Disclosure — Engineer A Industry Payment
derived from principle: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council at the outset of his testimony that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, so that the regulatory body could appropriately weigh his testimony in light of his financial relationship with the regulated industry.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.186459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Capacity Clarity Failure — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
type: CapacityClarityObligationinDual-RoleRegulatoryTestimony
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony
balancingwith: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was ambiguous as to capacity: he claimed to testify personally, yet his attendance was paid by a private coal bed methane company and his materials bore U.S. DOE identification — leaving the regulatory body unable to accurately assess his independence or authority
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The combination of personal testimony claim, industry payment, and government-branded materials created irreconcilable ambiguity about Engineer A's actual testifying capacity, violating the transparency obligation owed to the regulatory body
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
principleclass: Capacity Clarity Obligation in Dual-Role Regulatory Testimony
sourcetext: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
tensionresolution: No competing principle justifies the ambiguity; the Board found the overall conduct called into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations
textreferences: At the same time, it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.191898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant
type: Same-DomainFederalGovernmentPrivateConsultantEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOE-Consulting Overlap
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Breach — Engineer A DOE Private Consulting
adheres to principle: Same-Domain Concurrent Employment Conflict — Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Breach DOE Private Consulting
has obligation: Engineer A Same-Domain DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consulting Non-Engagement Violation
has obligation: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Non-Engagement Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Consulting
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'government_role': 'U.S. Department of Energy, Coal Bed Methane Division', 'private_role': 'Part-time consultant for private coal bed methane companies', 'testimony_context': 'Regulatory/administrative hearing on coal bed methane matters'}
caseinvolvement: Employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE while simultaneously performing private consulting for coal bed methane companies; testified at a regulatory hearing with attendance paid for by a private coal bed methane company while using a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE branding, creating false impressions of official governmental capacity; found to have seriously violated ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Private Coal Bed Methane Company (hearing sponsor)'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'U.S. Department of Energy'}
relationships: {'type': 'witness', 'target': 'Regulatory Hearing Authority'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Same-Domain Federal Government Private Consultant Engineer
sourcetext: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.183857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A DOE Title Display
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: PowerPoint presentation at State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
balancingwith: Loyalty to coal bed methane company client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: By prominently displaying his DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation without clarifying that he was testifying in a private consulting capacity paid for by the coal bed methane industry, Engineer A made representations about his professional identity that were technically accurate but materially misleading in their overall effect
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends beyond literal truthfulness to encompass the overall impression created by selective disclosure; displaying a governmental title in testimony materials while omitting the private consulting relationship constitutes a dishonest representation by omission
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
invokedby: Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
tensionresolution: Honesty obligation requires that the overall impression conveyed be accurate, not merely that individual statements be literally true; the engineer's obligation to the regulatory body and public overrides the interest in not volunteering potentially disadvantageous information about the private consulting relationship
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.177143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Technical testimony on coal bed methane discharge permit rules
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's objectivity as a regulatory witness was structurally compromised by his financial relationship with the coal bed methane industry whose permit rules were under consideration, yet he presented testimony in a manner that implied the disinterested objectivity of a governmental researcher
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires not only that technical opinions be formed without bias, but that the conditions under which objectivity can be assessed by the audience are transparent; concealing the financial relationship that creates a structural incentive for non-objectivity violates the objectivity principle even if the engineer believes his opinions are technically sound
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
invokedby: Industry-Retained Regulatory Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
tensionresolution: Objectivity as a professional virtue requires disclosure of conditions that compromise or appear to compromise independence; the engineer's subjective belief in his own objectivity does not satisfy the principle's requirement for structural transparency
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.185952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Objectivity Obligation — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's expert testimony on coal bed methane discharge permit rules
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's simultaneous employment by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane domain and private consulting for coal bed methane companies whose interests were directly implicated by the State Y hearing rules fundamentally compromised his ability to offer objective testimony at the regulatory proceeding
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in regulatory testimony requires freedom from financial and institutional conflicts of interest that could bias the engineer's technical opinions; dual employment in the same domain as the subject matter of the proceeding makes objectivity unattainable
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
tensionresolution: Objectivity obligation cannot be satisfied when the engineer is simultaneously employed by a government agency in the same domain and compensated by an interested private party
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.192918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Dual-Role Public-Private Conflict — Engineer A State DOT Airport Case
type: Dual-RoleConflictofInterestProhibitioninPublic-PrivateEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's proposed dual role as State DOT employee and airport design consultant
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing municipal contracts, was approached to simultaneously perform part-time airport consulting for the same municipalities — creating a conflict through domain linkage between highways and airports even though the specific subject matters differed
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even where domains appear distinct, linkages between them — here, highway-airport connectivity — can compromise independent judgment in either role, making the dual engagement unethical
invokedby: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
principleclass: Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Public-Private Engineering
sourcetext: it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
tensionresolution: The Board found that the potential for conflict and appearance issues outweighed the engineer's interest in private consulting, even assuming employer awareness and non-objection
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
textreferences: In deciding that it would be unethical for Engineer A to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
textreferences: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.177978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance Dual Employment Failure
type: GovernmentalProcedureandPolicyComplianceinDual-RoleEmploymentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Interrelated Domain Conflict Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict
casecontext: Engineer A engaged in private consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane division without apparent compliance with applicable governmental ethics regulations and agency policies on outside employment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOE-Consulting Overlap
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Governmental Procedure and Policy Compliance in Dual-Role Employment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and ethics regulations governing dual employment before engaging in private consulting while employed by the U.S. DOE.
sourcetext: The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
temporalscope: Prior to and throughout the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private consulting engagement
textreferences: The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.194764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Public Resources Non-Use DOE PowerPoint Private Testimony
type: PublicResourcesNon-UseinPrivateConsultingWorkObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Government-Branded Material Private Testimony Non-Use Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Shared PowerPoint Dual-Role Boundary Erosion
casecontext: Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification when testifying in a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, potentially using a government-developed resource in the performance of private work.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work — Engineer A DOT Advisory
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Resources Non-Use in Private Consulting Work Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using U.S. DOE-developed or DOE-branded presentation materials in the performance of private consulting work, including testimony paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
textreferences: The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.194574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A State Y Non-Licensure
type: ExpertWitnessLicensureStatusAffirmativeDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Engineer A DOE Title Display
defeasible under: Engineer A Out-of-State Testimony Licensure State
casecontext: Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X and not in State Y, satisfying this affirmative disclosure obligation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony Invoked By Engineer A State Y Appearance
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his non-licensure status in State Y at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, so that the regulatory body could assess the legal authority and jurisdictional qualification of his expert opinion.
sourcetext: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X.
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.188017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Faithful Agent Breach — Engineer A DOE Private Consulting
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: By privately consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed by the U.S. DOE in the same domain, Engineer A breached his fundamental obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee of his government employer, whose interests were directly implicated by the private consulting work
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation requires undivided loyalty to the employer within the scope of employment; same-domain private consulting for interests that may conflict with the government employer's regulatory mission constitutes a fundamental breach
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
tensionresolution: No balancing available; the Board characterized the breach as clear and the conflict as virtually irreconcilable
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.178123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony Invoked By Engineer A State Y Appearance
type: LicensureDisclosureinExpertTestimony
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Credential Presentation Accuracy in Testimonial Contexts
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X and not in State Y, satisfying the affirmative disclosure obligation for unlicensed jurisdiction testimony, though this disclosure alone was insufficient to address the broader credential misrepresentation issues arising from the undisclosed consulting relationship
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer A's disclosure of his State X-only licensure represents compliance with the licensure disclosure obligation; however, this technically compliant disclosure was embedded within a broader pattern of selective credential presentation that rendered the overall testimony misleading
invokedby: Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness
principleclass: Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony
sourcetext: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
tensionresolution: Compliance with the licensure disclosure obligation does not exhaust the engineer's credential transparency obligations; accurate licensure disclosure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for honest credential presentation when other material relationships remain undisclosed
textreferences: In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.186092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work — Engineer A DOT Advisory
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's proposed part-time airport consulting while employed by State DOT
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board cautioned Engineer A to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work — recognizing that dual-role engineers face specific accountability obligations regarding the separation of public and private resource use
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Professional accountability in dual-role contexts requires active monitoring and separation of public resources — including time, information, equipment, and relationships — from private consulting activities
invokedby: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
tensionresolution: The accountability obligation requires affirmative separation; passive non-use is insufficient when the dual roles create structural opportunities for resource conflation
textreferences: the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.193065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureEvolutionComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Technically True Misleading Capacity Claim Regulatory Testimony
defeasible under: Engineer A State Y Council Membership Conflict
prevails over: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Testimony Response
casecontext: Engineer A failed to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry, violating the current evolved standard requiring prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts of interest.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to comply with the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management by promptly disclosing his financial relationship with the coal bed methane company — including his compensation for attending the hearing and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry — to the State Y Environmental Quality Council before or at the outset of his testimony.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.188217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Dual-Role Testimony Capacity Clarification Failure
type: Dual-RoleTestimonyCapacityAffirmativeClarificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Testimony Response
defeasible under: Engineer A Ambiguous Testimony Capacity at Regulatory Hearing
prevails over: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Testimony Response
casecontext: Engineer A's testimony was ambiguous as to capacity: he claimed to testify personally, yet his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company and he used DOE-branded presentation materials, creating confusion about whether his testimony represented official governmental positions or private consulting opinions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Capacity Clarity Failure — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Dual-Role Testimony Capacity Affirmative Clarification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively and unambiguously clarify at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council whether he was testifying as a U.S. DOE employee in an official capacity or as a private consultant retained by the coal bed methane industry.
sourcetext: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the outset of and throughout testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
textreferences: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.193896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Extreme Same-Domain Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Recognition Failure
type: ExtremeSame-DomainDual-RoleConflictHeightenedEthicalScrutinyRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Non-Engagement Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Consulting
defeasible under: Present Case Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Conflict
prevails over: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Interrelated Domain Conflict Violation
casecontext: Engineer A proceeded with private consulting in the coal bed methane domain despite being employed by the U.S. DOE in that exact domain, failing to recognize that this represented a more extreme ethical violation than the interrelated-domain conflicts addressed in prior BER cases.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Same-Domain Concurrent Employment Conflict — Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Conflict Heightened Ethical Scrutiny Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting represented a heightened ethical conflict that could not be managed through disclosure or employer consent alone, requiring complete non-engagement in private consulting in that domain.
sourcetext: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting private consulting engagements in the coal bed methane domain
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients.
textreferences: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
textreferences: Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.195004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Same-Domain DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consulting Non-Engagement Violation
type: Same-DomainFederalGovernmentPrivateConsultingNon-EngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Breach DOE Private Consulting
defeasible under: Present Case Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Conflict
casecontext: Engineer A held a position in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE while simultaneously operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, testifying at a State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits with attendance paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOE-Consulting Overlap
derived from principle: Same-Domain Concurrent Employment Conflict — Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Same-Domain Federal Government Private Consulting Non-Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as an employee of the U.S. DOE working in the coal bed methane division, was obligated to refrain from simultaneously performing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies in the same domain.
sourcetext: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private consulting engagement
textreferences: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.193286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Engineer A DOE Title PowerPoint
type: GovernmentEmploymentAffiliationNon-ExploitationinRegulatoryTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Government-Branded Material Private Testimony Non-Use Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Government Credential Conflation in Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A displayed his DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the impression that his testimony carried governmental authority, when in fact he was testifying as a privately compensated consultant for the coal bed methane industry.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation — Engineer A DOE Title in Private Testimony
derived from principle: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Invoked By Engineer A DOE Identity
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and invoking his DOE employment at the outset of testimony without affirmatively clarifying that he was testifying in a private consulting capacity compensated by a coal bed methane company, not in an official DOE capacity.
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
temporalscope: Throughout the testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, beginning with the PowerPoint presentation
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.186608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Honesty Obligation — Engineer A Dual-Role Conduct
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's testimony and conduct at State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's overall conduct — using government-branded materials while claiming personal testimony, accepting industry payment while denying organizational affiliation, and consulting privately in his government domain — collectively reflected a failure of the fundamental honesty obligation owed to the regulatory body and the public
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty requires not merely avoiding affirmative falsehoods but ensuring that the overall impression conveyed to a regulatory body accurately reflects the engineer's actual affiliations, compensation, and testifying capacity
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer
tensionresolution: Honesty obligation is not overridden by loyalty to private client or desire to maintain appearance of independence
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
textreferences: it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.192709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Clients
type: IndustryConsultingRelationshipAffirmativeDisclosureinRegulatoryTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Response
defeasible under: Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A testified on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits while providing consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies, but never disclosed these ongoing industry consulting relationships during his testimony.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
derived from principle: Transparency Principle Invoked By Engineer A Concealed Compensation
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that he provides consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies — the same industry whose discharge permits were the subject of the hearing — so that the regulatory body could assess his objectivity and the weight to be given his testimony.
sourcetext: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies.
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.186888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

John Doe County Engineer Self-Review Planning Board Vote Violation
type: MunicipalAdvisoryEngineerSelf-ReviewProhibitionDesignContractAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: John Doe County Engineer Faithful Agent Breach Self-Approval
defeasible under: BER 67-1 Doe County Engineer Self-Approval Conflict
prevails over: John Doe County Engineer Faithful Agent Breach Self-Approval
casecontext: John Doe prepared subdivision development plans as a private consulting engineer, then as county engineer recommended approval of those plans to the county planning board, and as a planning board member voted to approve them — a direct self-review violation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Self-Review Prohibition — John Doe County Engineer Planning Board
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: John Doe
obligationclass: Municipal Advisory Engineer Self-Review Prohibition Design Contract Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: John Doe, as county engineer and county planning board member, was obligated to refrain from recommending and voting to approve subdivision plans that he had personally prepared in his private consulting capacity.
sourcetext: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
temporalscope: At the time of recommending and voting to approve the subdivision plans he had personally prepared
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
textreferences: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.195215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Present Case Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Conflict
type: Same-DomainGovernment-PrivateDualEmploymentConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A began performing private consulting in coal bed methane while employed in the DOE coal bed methane division, through the regulatory hearing
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Private coal bed methane company client
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory body
affectedparties: U.S. Department of Energy
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:12:21.352655+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
stateclass: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Employment Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous role as U.S. DOE coal bed methane division employee and private consultant in coal bed methane for private clients
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; ethics finding issued
textreferences: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepted private consulting work in coal bed methane while employed in the U.S. DOE coal bed methane division
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.184601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Breach DOE Private Consulting
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Same-Domain DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consulting Non-Engagement Violation
defeasible under: Present Case Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Conflict
casecontext: Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice serving coal bed methane companies whose interests were directly affected by the regulatory proceedings in which Engineer A participated.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Breach — Engineer A DOE Private Consulting
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for his employer, the U.S. DOE, by refraining from private consulting activities in the same coal bed methane domain that directly conflicted with his governmental employer's interests and responsibilities.
sourcetext: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private consulting engagement
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients.
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.194417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
type: ExpertWitnessEngineeringNon-AdvocateObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict
prevails over: Engineer A Technically True Misleading Capacity Claim Regulatory Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A was retained and compensated by a coal bed methane company to testify at a regulatory hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits, creating a structural conflict between his duty of objectivity and his financial relationship with the regulated industry.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
derived from principle: Objectivity Obligation — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing based on independent analysis, rather than functioning as an advocate for the coal bed methane industry that retained and compensated him to testify.
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: Throughout testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.179917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation — Engineer A DOE Title in Private Testimony
type: GovernmentEmploymentAffiliationNon-ExploitationinPrivateTestimony
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony on coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, simultaneously employed by the U.S. DOE and consulting privately for coal bed methane companies, used DOE-branded presentation materials at a regulatory hearing while claiming to testify personally — exploiting his governmental affiliation to lend unwarranted authority to private consulting testimony
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Whether negligent or intentional, the display of government employer identification in a private consulting context exploits the governmental affiliation to enhance the credibility of testimony that is not rendered on behalf of the government — a fundamental breach of the separation required between public and private roles
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
principleclass: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony
sourcetext: it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony
tensionresolution: The Board found no justification for the conflation; the exploitation of governmental affiliation is impermissible regardless of intent
textreferences: An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony.
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.192282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Invoked By Engineer A DOE Identity
type: GovernmentEmploymentAffiliationNon-ExploitationinPrivateTestimony
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: PowerPoint presentation materials
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Legitimate credential disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the impression of governmental authority and objectivity, while simultaneously testifying in a privately-retained consulting capacity paid for by the coal bed methane industry — resulting in a newspaper characterizing him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher'
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle is violated when the cumulative effect of credential presentation — displaying governmental title, identifying governmental employment, testifying on subject matter within governmental role — creates an impression of governmental objectivity that the engineer knows to be false given the private consulting relationship
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
invokedby: Engineer A Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting
principleclass: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony
sourcetext: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
tensionresolution: The engineer may legitimately disclose governmental employment as a credential, but must affirmatively counteract any misleading impression of governmental backing by clearly identifying the private consulting capacity and financial relationship at the outset of testimony
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.185625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

John Doe County Engineer Faithful Agent Breach Self-Approval
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: John Doe County Engineer Self-Review Planning Board Vote Violation
defeasible under: BER 67-1 Doe County Engineer Self-Approval Conflict
casecontext: John Doe exploited his dual roles as county engineer and planning board member to recommend and approve his own privately-prepared subdivision plans, breaching the faithful agent duty owed to the county as his governmental employer.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Self-Review Prohibition — John Doe County Engineer Planning Board
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: John Doe
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: John Doe was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the county by refraining from using his governmental positions to approve plans he had personally prepared in his private consulting capacity.
sourcetext: In his capacity as an engineer in private practice, Doe had prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member.
temporalscope: At the time of recommending and voting to approve the subdivision plans
textreferences: In his capacity as an engineer in private practice, Doe had prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member.
textreferences: Said the Board, '(Doe) would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.'
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.195383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Regulatory Hearing Financial Disclosure — Engineer A Industry Payment
type: RegulatoryHearingFinancialRelationshipDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permit rules
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company that had a direct interest in the outcome of the proposed discharge permit rules, yet Engineer A characterized his testimony as personal rather than organizational — failing to affirmatively disclose the financial relationship
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Payment of attendance costs by an interested industry party constitutes a financial relationship requiring disclosure, regardless of whether the engineer characterizes the testimony as personal; the regulatory body is entitled to assess the independence of the testimony
invokedby: Coal Bed Methane Company Client
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
principleclass: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
tensionresolution: Financial relationship disclosure obligation overrides any interest in maintaining the appearance of personal testimony independence
textreferences: On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
textreferences: the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.192058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Non-Engagement Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Consulting
type: Same-DomainGovernment-PrivateDualRoleConflictNon-EngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Extreme Same-Domain Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Recognition Failure
defeasible under: Present Case Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Conflict
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Breach DOE Private Consulting
casecontext: Engineer A simultaneously held a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily for coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOE-Consulting Overlap
derived from principle: Same-Domain Concurrent Employment Conflict — Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from simultaneously holding a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, as the identity of domains created an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest compromising objectivity in both roles.
sourcetext: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
temporalscope: During the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting
textreferences: Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.187180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Transparency Principle Invoked By Engineer A Concealed Compensation
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Coal bed methane discharge permit rulemaking proceeding
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
balancingwith: Confidentiality of business arrangements
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry violated the transparency obligation owed to the State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regulatory body receiving his testimony
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Transparency in regulatory testimony requires affirmative disclosure of all material relationships and financial interests that bear on the engineer's independence; the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately depends on this transparency
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
principleclass: Transparency (Principle)
sourcetext: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
tensionresolution: Transparency obligation to the regulatory body overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship when that relationship is directly material to the regulatory proceeding
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.186273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOE-Consulting Overlap
type: Dual-RoleConflictofInterestProhibitioninPublic-PrivateEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Private consulting for coal bed methane companies
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
appliedto: U.S. DOE coal bed methane employment
balancingwith: Professional autonomy
balancingwith: Right to engage in consulting
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits in a capacity that blurred the boundary between these roles
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The dual-role prohibition applies with particular force when both roles concern the same subject matter domain (coal bed methane), because the governmental role's subject matter expertise and credibility directly enhances the private consulting role's commercial value and perceived authority
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant
invokedby: Engineer A Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting
principleclass: Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Public-Private Engineering
sourcetext: Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
tensionresolution: The conflict is not resolved by the engineer's personal disclaimer ('on my own behalf') because the structural overlap between the governmental and private roles creates an inherent appearance of impropriety that cannot be cured by verbal disclaimer alone
textreferences: Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.185800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Government-Branded Material Private Testimony Non-Use Violation
type: Government-BrandedPresentationMaterialPrivateTestimonyNon-UseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Public Resources Non-Use DOE PowerPoint Private Testimony
competes with: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Engineer A DOE Title PowerPoint
defeasible under: Engineer A Shared PowerPoint Dual-Role Boundary Erosion
casecontext: Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits, creating a false impression of official governmental endorsement of testimony delivered in a private consulting capacity.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Government Affiliation Material Accuracy — Engineer A PowerPoint
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Government-Branded Presentation Material Private Testimony Non-Use Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification when testifying in what appears to have been a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing.
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony.
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
textreferences: However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.193456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation DOE Title Display Violation
type: GovernmentEmploymentAffiliationNon-ExploitationinRegulatoryTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Engineer A DOE Title Display
defeasible under: Engineer A Government Credential Conflation in Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the appearance that his testimony carried official governmental authority, while in fact testifying in a private consulting capacity paid for by a coal bed methane company.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation — Engineer A DOE Title in Private Testimony
derived from principle: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Invoked By Engineer A DOE Identity
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title and institutional affiliation in a manner that created a false impression of official governmental endorsement of testimony delivered in a private consulting capacity.
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
textreferences: it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.194065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Interrelated Domain Conflict Violation
type: Dual-RolePublic-PrivateEngineerInterrelatedDomainConflictAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance Dual Employment Failure
defeasible under: BER 02-8 Engineer A Highway-Airport Adjacent Domain Conflict
casecontext: Engineer A was approached by his former consulting firm to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities while continuing as a State DOT traffic engineer who reviewed contracts and plans submitted by those same municipalities — an interrelated-domain conflict where highway and airport decisions are functionally linked.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Dual-Role Public-Private Conflict — Engineer A State DOT Airport Case
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation — Engineer A DOT Dual Role
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (State DOT context)
obligationclass: Dual-Role Public-Private Engineer Interrelated Domain Conflict Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer, was obligated to refrain from simultaneously performing private airport design consulting for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT, recognizing that highways and airports are inextricably linked domains where decisions in one sphere could compromise objectivity in the other.
sourcetext: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
temporalscope: At the time of considering acceptance of the part-time airport consulting role
textreferences: Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
textreferences: the Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
textreferences: there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.195551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Engineer A DOE Title Display
type: ExpertWitnessCredentialPresentationNon-MisleadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation DOE Title Display Violation
competes with: Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A State Y Non-Licensure
prevails over: Engineer A Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation DOE Title Display Violation
casecontext: Engineer A displayed his DOE job title prominently in his PowerPoint presentation without clarifying his private consulting capacity, resulting in a newspaper characterizing him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' who testified at the hearing.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Credential Presentation Accuracy Invoked By Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the capacity in which he was testifying — including affirmatively disclosing that his testimony was funded by a private coal bed methane company — and to refrain from presenting his DOE job title in a manner that created a false impression of official governmental endorsement of his testimony.
sourcetext: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.
textreferences: a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.186752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Response
type: TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingOmissionProhibitioninRegulatoryTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Clients
defeasible under: Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
casecontext: When directly asked whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A responded 'I am testifying on my own behalf,' which was technically accurate but omitted the material fact that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Honesty Obligation — Engineer A Dual-Role Conduct
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A DOE Title Display
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, without simultaneously disclosing that his attendance was compensated by a coal bed methane company — as the technically true response created a materially false impression of independent, uncompensated testimony.
sourcetext: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
temporalscope: At the end of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council when directly questioned about the capacity of his testimony
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.187713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
type: RegulatoryHearingFinancialRelationshipDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
balancingwith: Confidentiality of business arrangements
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits without disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, depriving the regulatory body of information necessary to assess the independence of his testimony
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to disclose financial relationships to regulatory bodies is triggered whenever an engineer's compensation is sourced from a party with a direct interest in the regulatory outcome, regardless of whether the engineer frames the testimony as personal rather than organizational
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
invokedby: Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness
principleclass: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
tensionresolution: The integrity of the public regulatory record and the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately requires disclosure of financial relationships; the engineer's personal characterization of testimony ('on my own behalf') does not satisfy this obligation when the financial relationship remains undisclosed
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.185430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Self-Review Prohibition — John Doe County Engineer Planning Board
type: MunicipalAdvisoryRoleSelf-ReviewProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Subdivision development plan approval process
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: John Doe, as county engineer, recommended approval of subdivision plans he had personally prepared as a private consultant, and then as a county planning board member voted to approve those same plans — constituting a paradigmatic self-review violation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The self-review prohibition applies at multiple levels: the county engineer role alone created a conflict by requiring recommendation of privately prepared plans, and the planning board membership compounded it by enabling a vote on those same plans
invokedby: John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
principleclass: Municipal Advisory Role Self-Review Prohibition
sourcetext: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
tensionresolution: The Board found the conflict clear and unambiguous; no balancing was available given the direct identity between the preparer and the approver
textreferences: (Doe) would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.
textreferences: Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
textreferences: In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.192533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Testimony Response
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Dual-Role Testimony Capacity Clarification Failure
defeasible under: Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A's response to the direct question about his testimonial capacity was technically accurate but structured to obscure his financial relationship with the coal bed methane industry, violating the prohibition on artfully misleading statements.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty Obligation — Engineer A Dual-Role Conduct
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A DOE Title Display
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:16:18.109053+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making the technically true but materially misleading statement 'I am testifying on my own behalf' in response to a direct question about his testimonial capacity, when that statement omitted the decisive context that his attendance was compensated by a private coal bed methane company.
sourcetext: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
temporalscope: At the conclusion of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.187875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Violation
type: EngineerARegulatoryHearingFinancialRelationshipDisclosureViolation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Technically True Misleading Capacity Claim Regulatory Testimony
competes with: Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
prevails over: Engineer A Technically True Misleading Capacity Claim Regulatory Testimony
prevails over: Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Response
casecontext: Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits without disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, while claiming to testify on his own behalf.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
derived from principle: Transparency Principle Invoked By Engineer A Concealed Compensation
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the proposed rules.
sourcetext: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
textreferences: On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.193737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
type: UndisclosedPrivateRetainerinRegulatoryTestimonyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the commencement of Engineer A's testimony through the conclusion of the hearing; persisting until later public revelation
affectedparties: Coal bed methane company
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Y Environmental Quality Council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:10:26.847462+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
stateclass: Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony State
subject: Engineer A's concealed financial relationship with coal bed methane company during State Y regulatory hearing testimony
terminatedby: Later public revelation that Engineer A's attendance was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
triggeringevent: Engineer A's acceptance of payment from coal bed methane company for hearing attendance through consulting business, without disclosure to the regulatory body
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.182845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Coal bed methane discharge permit rulemaking
appliedto: State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
balancingwith: Confidentiality of consulting arrangements
balancingwith: Loyalty to retaining client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company — the regulated industry whose permit rules were the subject of the hearing — creating an undisclosed financial conflict of interest that compromised the apparent objectivity of his testimony
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:14:20.271700+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Conflict of interest disclosure in advisory engagements extends to regulatory testimony contexts where the engineer is compensated by a party with a direct financial stake in the regulatory outcome; the regulatory body stands in the position of the party to whom disclosure is owed
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
invokedby: Engineer A Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
sourcetext: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
tensionresolution: The regulatory body's and public's interest in knowing the financial basis of expert testimony overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship, particularly where the relationship is directly material to assessing the objectivity of the testimony
textreferences: Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
textreferences: information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.185246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A Technically True Misleading Capacity Claim Regulatory Testimony
type: TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingOmissionProhibitioninRegulatoryTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
competes with: Engineer A Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
casecontext: Engineer A claimed to testify personally while his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company — a technically defensible but materially misleading characterization that obscured his financial relationship with the regulated industry.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty Obligation — Engineer A Dual-Role Conduct
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:23:11.416072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from claiming to testify 'on his own behalf' in a manner that was technically true but structured to create a false impression by omitting the decisive context that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
sourcetext: On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
temporalscope: At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
textreferences: On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.195716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Same-Domain Concurrent Employment Conflict — Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
type: Same-DomainConcurrentPublic-PrivateEmploymentConflictProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's dual employment in coal bed methane domain
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, simultaneously performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies — the identical technical domain — making independent judgment and faithful agency to his government employer virtually impossible
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:20:54.697195+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The complete identity of subject matter between the government role and the private consulting work — both in coal bed methane — represents the most extreme form of dual-role conflict, eliminating any possibility of maintaining the separation required by the faithful agent obligation
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant
principleclass: Same-Domain Concurrent Public-Private Employment Conflict Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
tensionresolution: No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked
textreferences: As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
textreferences: This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
textreferences: To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.177832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction

Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
type: Industry-RetainedRegulatoryHearingWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Capacity Clarity Failure — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
adheres to principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
adheres to principle: Credential Presentation Accuracy Invoked By Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
adheres to principle: Government Affiliation Material Accuracy — Engineer A PowerPoint
adheres to principle: Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation — Engineer A DOE Title in Private Testimony
adheres to principle: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Invoked By Engineer A DOE Identity
adheres to principle: Honesty Obligation — Engineer A Dual-Role Conduct
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A DOE Title Display
adheres to principle: Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
adheres to principle: Objectivity Obligation — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
adheres to principle: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Transparency Principle Invoked By Engineer A Concealed Compensation
has obligation: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Testimony Response
has obligation: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
has obligation: Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Government-Branded Material Private Testimony Non-Use Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Dual-Role Testimony Capacity Clarification Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation DOE Title Display Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Industry Consulting Relationship Disclosure State Y Hearing Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Public Resources Non-Use DOE PowerPoint Private Testimony
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Technically True Misleading Capacity Claim Regulatory Testimony
has obligation: Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
has obligation: Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Engineer A DOE Title PowerPoint
has obligation: Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Clients
has obligation: Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Engineer A State Y Hearing
has obligation: Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Response
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'retaining_party': 'Private coal bed methane company', 'presentation_used': 'U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint', 'claimed_capacity': 'Personal (not official DOE)'}
caseinvolvement: Testified at a governmental/regulatory hearing on coal bed methane matters with attendance paid for by a private coal bed methane company, while using a U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation that created a false impression of official governmental capacity and independence; failed to clearly disclose the retaining party's identity and financial relationship.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 145
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 145
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:11:50.373028+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'affiliated_with', 'target': 'U.S. Department of Energy (government employer)'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Private Coal Bed Methane Company'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifying_before', 'target': 'Regulatory Hearing Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Industry-Retained Regulatory Hearing Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
textreferences: Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf
textreferences: Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
textreferences: Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
wasattributedto: Case 145 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T18:32:03.184010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 145 Extraction