ProEthica Case 147 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.814273
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Client B Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Accept Client B Engagement → Ethics Complaint Filed
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Applied to Complaint Non-Disclosure
type: Allegation-AdjudicationDistinctioninDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging lack of competence in services similar to those being rendered to Client B
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Current Client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board holds that Engineer A is not ethically compelled to automatically disclose to Client B the ethics complaint filed by Client C, because a complaint is a mere allegation — not a finding of fact or conclusion of law — and engineers should not be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations that could be false, baseless, or maliciously motivated.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The distinction between allegation and adjudicated finding is the central analytical pivot: the Board treats an unresolved complaint as categorically different from a disciplinary finding, such that the disclosure obligations triggered by the latter do not automatically apply to the former.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law. No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
tensionresolution: The Board resolves the tension by holding that the allegation-adjudication distinction negates the automatic disclosure obligation while leaving open the possibility of prudential voluntary disclosure — the engineer must weigh factors and take prudent action rather than automatically disclose or automatically withhold.
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.814809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Invoked by Engineer A Non-Disclosure Decision
type: Allegation-AdjudicationDistinctioninDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision whether to disclose Client C's pending competence complaint to Client B
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Current Client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A determined that the pending ethics complaint — an unproven allegation by Client C — did not require disclosure to Client B, reasoning that an unresolved complaint is not an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle supports Engineer A's position that a mere allegation does not compel disclosure; however, the Board's analysis suggests this principle does not fully resolve the question when the complaint concerns competence for materially similar services actively being rendered.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
tensionresolution: The Allegation-Adjudication Distinction provides partial support for non-disclosure but is overridden by the faithful agent and informed decision-making obligations when the complaint directly concerns competence for the same type of services currently being rendered.
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.830364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Calibration — Engineer A Pending Complaint
type: Allegationvs.AdjudicationDisclosureDistinctionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client C alleged Engineer A lacked competence for services similar to those being performed for Client B; the complaint was pending and unadjudicated at the time of the disclosure decision
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's disclosure obligation to Client B was calibrated by the fact that the ethics complaint filed by Client C constituted a mere allegation — not an adjudicated finding of incompetence — prohibiting Engineer A from treating the pending complaint as equivalent to a disciplinary adjudication for disclosure purposes, while also prohibiting Engineer A from treating the allegation as entirely immaterial given its similarity to the services being rendered to Client B.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 97-11; contrast with BER Case 03-6 (adjudicated wrongdoing compels disclosure)
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
temporalscope: Throughout the period the complaint remained pending and unresolved while Engineer A served Client B
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.833446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Engineer A Complaint Case 97-11
type: Allegationvs.AdjudicationDisclosureDistinctionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board's analysis turned on the distinction between an allegation and an adjudication, establishing that the disclosure obligation is calibrated by this distinction.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to distinguish between the pending, unadjudicated ethics complaint (a mere allegation) and an adjudicated finding of misconduct when assessing disclosure obligations to Client B — the former not compelling automatic disclosure, the latter potentially doing so.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, II.4.a; BER Case No. 97-11
sourcetext: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
temporalscope: During the period the ethics complaint remained pending and unadjudicated
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.820328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Threshold in Engineer A's Complaint
type: Allegationvs.AdjudicationDisclosureThresholdDifferentialState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Coextensive with the pending complaint period before any adjudication
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Client C
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
stateclass: Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Differential State
subject: The ethical distinction between Engineer A's pending (unresolved) complaint and a hypothetical adjudicated finding, determining whether disclosure to Client B is mandatory or discretionary
terminatedby: Formal adjudication of the complaint (which would shift the disclosure obligation)
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent
textreferences: depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action
triggeringevent: Client C filing a complaint that remains unresolved and unadjudicated
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.827967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Threshold — Pending Complaint
type: Allegationvs.AdjudicationDisclosureThresholdDifferentialState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Concurrent with the pending complaint period; crystallized when Engineer A decides not to disclose
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
stateclass: Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Differential State
subject: The ethical question of whether a pending, unadjudicated ethics complaint (mere allegation) triggers the same disclosure obligation as an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case narrative; complaint remains pending and unadjudicated
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
triggeringevent: Engineer A's determination that notification to Client B is unnecessary because the complaint is only an allegation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.824740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

BER Board Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Distinction BER 83-1 vs 90-4
type: Key-EmployeevsNon-Key-EmployeeBrochureListingMaterialityDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated capability to distinguish between Engineer A's 'key employee' designation in BER 83-1 (material misrepresentation) and Engineer X's non-key-employee status in BER 90-4 (permissible listing under totality of circumstances), using this distinction to reach different ethical conclusions in the two cases.
casecontext: Comparative analysis of BER Cases 83-1 and 90-4 in the current case discussion
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Comparative analysis of BER 83-1 and BER 90-4 identifying key-employee designation as the critical factual distinction determining materiality of post-departure brochure listing
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In Case No. 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall makeup of the firm.
textreferences: In Case No. 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall makeup of the firm.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.821058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

BER Board Multi-Precedent Brochure Synthesis Current Case
type: BERMulti-PrecedentBrochurePersonnelMisrepresentationSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated capability to synthesize BER Cases 83-1 and 90-4 — identifying their shared normative framework (dual-element pertinent fact test, valence-neutral deception standard) and their critical factual distinctions (key vs. non-key employee) — and apply the synthesized framework to a novel case involving pending complaint non-disclosure.
casecontext: Current case discussion synthesizing BER 83-1 and 90-4 to analyze Engineer A's pending complaint non-disclosure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Three-case triangulation across BER 83-1, BER 90-4, and the current case, extracting transferable principles while recognizing the present case's distinct factual posture
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The Board has reviewed a number of factual situations over the years relating to the question of misleading clients through the misrepresentation of professional qualifications.
textreferences: The Board has reviewed a number of factual situations over the years relating to the question of misleading clients through the misrepresentation of professional qualifications.
textreferences: The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4, because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.821381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

BER Board Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Application BER 83-1
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated capability to apply the two-part conjunctive test under NSPE Code II.5.a — assessing both (1) whether Engineer A's name constituted a 'pertinent fact' and (2) whether Engineer B distributed the brochure with intent to enhance firm qualifications — concluding both elements were satisfied in BER Case 83-1.
casecontext: BER Case 83-1 — Engineer B distributed brochures listing Engineer A as key employee after termination notice and after actual departure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Analysis of BER Case 83-1 applying the dual-element pertinent fact misrepresentation test to Engineer B's post-termination brochure distribution
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a to exist.
textreferences: We concluded that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a to exist.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.820881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

BER Board Valence-Neutral Deception Assessment Current Case
type: Valence-NeutralDeceptionAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Valence-Neutral Deception Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated capability to apply a valence-neutral deception standard, explicitly holding that whether information reflects positively or negatively on the engineer is irrelevant to the deception analysis — the relevant question is whether the communication or omission misleads or deceives the client.
casecontext: Current case — BER analysis bridging BER 83-1/90-4 brochure cases to Engineer A's pending complaint non-disclosure situation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Explicit articulation of the valence-neutral principle in transitioning from the brochure misrepresentation cases (positive valence) to the pending complaint non-disclosure case (negative valence)
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: However, the Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
textreferences: However, the Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
textreferences: The issue of greatest importance in each of these cases appears not to be whether a client would be pleased or disappointed with the information, but whether the information communicated (or in the present case not communicated) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.821236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

BER Case No. 83-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 83-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: For example, in Case No. 83-1, Engineer A worked for Engineer B.
textreferences: For example, in Case No. 83-1, Engineer A worked for Engineer B.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
textreferences: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
textreferences: The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning in the present case
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that distributing a brochure listing a terminated engineer as a key employee after actual termination constitutes an unethical misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications; also established the two-factor test (misrepresentation of pertinent facts + intent to enhance qualifications) for NSPE Code Section II.5.a violations
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

BER Case No. 90-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 90-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In Case No. 90-4, Engineer X was employed by Firm Y, a medium-sized engineering consulting firm controlled by Engineer Z.
textreferences: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
textreferences: In Case No. 90-4, Engineer X was employed by Firm Y, a medium-sized engineering consulting firm controlled by Engineer Z.
textreferences: The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4, because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning and distinguishing the present case
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that continued representation of a departing engineer as a firm employee was not unethical where the engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee' and the firm's hydrology work was not a significant percentage of its practice; used to distinguish the present case by comparing the significance of the departing engineer's role
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure Obligation Applied to Case 83-1 Notice Period
type: BrochurePersonnelCurrencyDisclosureDuringActiveNegotiationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as key employee distributed during notice period before actual termination
balancingwith: Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board holds that Engineer B's distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A during the notice period was not unethical, provided Engineer B apprised prospective clients during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination — establishing a conditional permissibility rule for notice-period brochure use contingent on contemporaneous corrective disclosure.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The notice-period conditional permissibility rule reflects a practical accommodation for the administrative burden of immediately updating printed materials, balanced against the client's right to accurate information — the corrective disclosure during negotiation cures the potential misleading effect of the stale brochure.
invokedby: Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
principleclass: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
sourcetext: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
tensionresolution: The conditional permissibility rule resolves the tension between administrative practicality and client accuracy rights by requiring active corrective disclosure rather than immediate material withdrawal.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
textreferences: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.815449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Brochure Personnel Currency Obligation Distinguished in Case 90-4
type: BrochurePersonnelCurrencyDisclosureDuringActiveNegotiationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm brochure and resume listing Engineer X as employee after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure
balancingwith: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board distinguishes Case 90-4 from Case 83-1 by finding that Engineer Z's continued listing of departing Engineer X was not unethical under the circumstances — Engineer X was not a 'key employee' in the sense that her hydrology expertise did not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work, so the pertinence threshold for triggering the disclosure obligation was not met.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The materiality of the departing engineer's role to the firm's overall capability is a key factor in determining whether the personnel listing constitutes a pertinent fact whose continued inclusion triggers the disclosure obligation — non-key personnel departures may not reach the pertinence threshold.
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4
principleclass: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
sourcetext: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
tensionresolution: The Board resolves the apparent tension between Cases 83-1 and 90-4 by identifying the material factual distinction: 'key employee' status is the operative variable, and its absence in Case 90-4 negates the violation finding.
textreferences: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of the few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology did not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: In Case No. 83-1 , Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall makeup of the firm.
textreferences: In Case No. 90-4 , Engineer X was employed by Firm Y, a medium-sized engineering consulting firm controlled by Engineer Z.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.815647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Case 147 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Case No. 83-1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Case No. 83-1 and Case No. 90-4 rulings before current case analysis involving Engineer A and Client B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Case No. 83-1 ruling before Case No. 90-4 ruling
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Case No. 90-4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Client B Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.439075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

CausalLink_Continue Rendering Services Po
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

CausalLink_Decide Against Disclosing Ethi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Distributes Brochur
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer Z Continues Listing D
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.439038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

CausalLink_Prepare Plans and CPM Schedule
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client B Current Client of Ethics-Complained Engineer
type: CurrentClientofEthics-ComplainedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship_to_complaint': 'Not the complainant; a concurrent active client', 'interest': "Potential exposure to third-party questions about Engineer A's conduct"}
caseinvolvement: Current client receiving engineering services from Engineer A while Engineer A is subject to a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C. The Board analyzed whether Engineer A owed Client B a disclosure obligation regarding the complaint, concluding that prudential (not mandatory) disclosure of background information was advisable.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'served_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Current Client of Ethics-Complained Engineer
sourcetext: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned
textreferences: Client B will be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties
textreferences: demonstrating to Client B that Engineer A is acting in a professional and responsible manner
textreferences: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.829912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client B Expresses Displeasure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client B Learns of Complaint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client B Manufacturing Facility Design Client
type: ManufacturingFacilityDesignClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'project_type': 'Manufacturing facility', 'services_received': 'Design services and CPM scheduling', 'discovery_method': 'Learned of complaint through another party, not from Engineer A', 'response': 'Expressed upset and asserted expectation of proactive disclosure'}
caseinvolvement: Client B retains Engineer A for design services and CPM scheduling on a manufacturing facility. Client B later learns through a third party of the pending ethics complaint against Engineer A and asserts that Engineer A should have proactively disclosed this information.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'uninformed_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Manufacturing Facility Design Client
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client B Trust Undermined by Non-Disclosure Discovery
type: EmployerTrustUnderminedbyInitialNon-DisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's independent discovery of the complaint onward
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
stateclass: Employer Trust Undermined by Initial Non-Disclosure State
subject: Client B's discovery — through a third party rather than from Engineer A — that a pending ethics complaint existed, retroactively undermining the trust basis of the professional relationship
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case narrative
textreferences: Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
triggeringevent: Client B learning of the ethics complaint through another party rather than from Engineer A
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.825940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client C Competence Allegation — Similar Services Context
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationtoClientState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the filing of Client C's complaint through the case narrative
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Client C
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
stateclass: Competence Misrepresentation to Client State
subject: The allegation by Client C that Engineer A lacked competence to perform services similar in nature to those currently being rendered to Client B, creating a contextual competence-relevance signal
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case narrative
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
triggeringevent: Client C filing an ethics complaint alleging Engineer A lacked competence for similar services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.825058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client C Prior Client Ethics Complainant
type: PriorClientEthicsComplainant
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'complaint_allegation': 'Engineer A lacked competence to perform the services in question', 'complaint_filed_with': 'State board of professional engineers', 'services_context': 'Similar to services currently being performed for Client B'}
caseinvolvement: Client C previously retained Engineer A for services similar to those now being performed for Client B, and has filed a formal ethics complaint with the state board of professional engineers alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform those services.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'complainant_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint'}
relationships: {'type': 'prior_client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Prior Client Ethics Complainant
sourcetext: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.830066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Client Relationship Engineer A with Client B During Pending Complaint
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the period of Engineer A's engagement with Client B, concurrent with the pending complaint
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's active professional relationship with Client B, which creates the context for the disclosure obligation analysis
terminatedby: Completion or termination of the Client B engagement
textreferences: Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information
textreferences: an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client
triggeringevent: Engineer A's engagement by Client B for professional services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.828423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Comparative Precedent Distinguishing Obligation Applied Across Cases 83-1, 90-4, and Present Case
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board's reasoning process in determining whether non-disclosure of pending complaint violates NSPE Code
balancingwith: Valence-Neutral Misleading Information Standard in Professional Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board systematically distinguishes the present case from Cases 83-1 and 90-4 by identifying the material factual difference: the earlier cases involved positive credential inflation (implying higher expertise than the firm possessed), while the present case involves potential negative information (a pending complaint); the Board then holds that this distinction does not alter the analytical framework but does affect the outcome through the allegation-adjudication distinction.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The comparative precedent analysis is the Board's primary methodological tool — it uses Cases 83-1 and 90-4 as reference points to identify what is analytically the same (the misleading-communication framework) and what is different (positive vs. negative information valence, allegation vs. adjudicated fact) in the present case.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
sourcetext: The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4, because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had.
tensionresolution: The Board's careful distinguishing of precedents allows it to apply a consistent analytical framework while reaching a different outcome — the precedents establish the framework but the material factual differences determine the result.
textreferences: Considering the earlier cases, the Board noted that the facts in Case No. 90-4 , while similar, are different in one important area.
textreferences: The Board has reviewed a number of factual situations over the years relating to the question of misleading clients through the misrepresentation of professional qualifications.
textreferences: The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4 , because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.816018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Competence Self-Assessment Under Pending Complaint — Engineer A
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client C alleged Engineer A lacked competence for services similar to those being performed for Client B; Engineer A was obligated to honestly assess whether this allegation had merit affecting the current engagement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the boundaries of demonstrated competence to honestly assess whether the pending competence complaint raised legitimate questions about Engineer A's ability to competently perform the services being rendered to Client B, and to refrain from continuing services if the self-assessment revealed a genuine competence deficiency.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
temporalscope: Throughout the active engagement with Client B while the competence complaint was pending
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.834513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Complaint Notice Received
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that non-disclosure was ethical rests entirely on the allegation-adjudication distinction — the principle that an unproven complaint does not carry the same moral weight as an adjudicated finding of misconduct. While this distinction is defensible as a general rule, the Board did not adequately account for the similar-services context, which meaningfully elevates the materiality of the pending complaint. When Client C's competence allegation directly parallels the scope of services Engineer A is actively rendering to Client B, the complaint is no longer merely a private professional matter between Engineer A and a prior client — it becomes information that bears directly on Client B's ability to make an informed decision about the ongoing engagement. The allegation-adjudication distinction appropriately prevents unproven claims from being treated as established facts, but it does not follow that such claims carry zero informational value to a current client receiving substantially similar services. The Board's reasoning would have been stronger had it explicitly addressed why the similar-services overlap did not elevate the disclosure threshold, rather than treating the unresolved status of the complaint as categorically dispositive.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's application of the valence-neutral standard in the brochure cases — finding that omissions of negative information can be as deceptive as omissions of positive information — creates an internal tension with its conclusion in the present case that Engineer A's silence about a pending competence complaint was ethical. In the brochure cases, the Board found that failing to update promotional materials to reflect a departed employee's status was deceptive precisely because prospective clients would reasonably rely on the listed credentials as an implicit representation of current firm capability. By analogy, Engineer A's silence about a pending competence complaint in a similar-services context could reasonably be interpreted by Client B as an implicit representation that no relevant professional concerns existed. The Board did not resolve this tension; it distinguished the present case on the grounds that the complaint was unproven, but this distinction addresses the weight of the information rather than whether the omission itself could function as a misleading representation. A more complete analysis would have acknowledged that the valence-neutral standard, if applied consistently, creates at minimum a prudential obligation — and arguably an ethical one — to disclose pending competence concerns when they are directly relevant to active services, even if the disclosure is framed as contextual background rather than an admission of fault.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that voluntary disclosure would have been prudent — while stopping short of declaring it obligatory — reveals an underexplored dimension of the faithful agent obligation. The faithful agent standard requires Engineer A to act in Client B's best interest and to enable informed decision-making. The Board implicitly acknowledged that Client B had a legitimate relational interest in knowing about the pending complaint, as evidenced by its recognition that proactive disclosure would have been wise. However, by framing this as prudence rather than obligation, the Board effectively permitted Engineer A to prioritize personal professional privacy over Client B's capacity for informed consent regarding the ongoing engagement. The fact that Client B discovered the complaint through a third party and expressed that trust had been undermined is not merely a relational consequence — it is evidence that the non-disclosure produced a material harm to the professional relationship that the faithful agent obligation was designed to prevent. A more rigorous application of the faithful agent standard would recognize that where non-disclosure foreseeably damages the client relationship and undermines the client's ability to make informed decisions about an active engagement, the prudential and ethical thresholds converge. The Board's framing of disclosure as merely wise rather than required may therefore understate the strength of the faithful agent obligation in contexts where similar-services materiality and third-party discovery risk are both present.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The similar-services context does elevate the materiality of the pending complaint, but not to the level of a mandatory disclosure obligation. When Client C's competence allegation concerns services nearly identical in nature to those Engineer A is actively performing for Client B, the complaint is no longer a purely private professional matter — it bears a direct logical relationship to the quality of work Client B is currently receiving. This contextual overlap means that a reasonable client in Client B's position would likely consider the information significant to their ongoing decision-making about the engagement. However, materiality alone does not convert a prudential consideration into an ethical mandate. The allegation-adjudication distinction retains force even in the similar-services context: an unresolved complaint is not evidence of actual incompetence, and treating it as disclosure-triggering would effectively penalize engineers for the mere filing of complaints, regardless of merit. The Board's conclusion that non-disclosure was ethical therefore holds, but it holds more narrowly than the Board's reasoning suggests. The similar-services context represents a meaningful ethical weight that the Board underweighted, and it is the primary reason why voluntary disclosure would have been not merely prudent but genuinely aligned with the faithful agent obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: The relational damage caused by non-disclosure — specifically, Client B's discovery of the complaint through a third party and the resulting erosion of trust — does constitute an independent ethical concern, though not one that retroactively renders Engineer A's original decision unethical. The Board's conclusion that non-disclosure was ethical was rendered at the moment of the decision, not in light of its consequences. However, from a consequentialist perspective, the outcome reveals a structural flaw in the Board's reasoning: if the faithful agent obligation is meant to protect the client's ability to make informed decisions and preserve the integrity of the professional relationship, then a decision that predictably results in the client feeling deceived — even if technically permissible — fails to satisfy the spirit of that obligation. The fact that Client B explicitly stated Engineer A should have disclosed the complaint is not merely a relational grievance; it is evidence that the client's reasonable expectations of transparency were not met. This does not establish an ethical violation, but it does establish that the Board's framing of disclosure as merely prudent underestimates the weight of the faithful agent obligation when the client's trust is materially at stake and the information is directly relevant to ongoing services.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The burden of determining when a pending ethics complaint becomes information a current client has a legitimate interest in knowing should rest primarily with the engineer, not the client or the licensing board. The client lacks the information necessary to make the determination, and the licensing board's role is adjudicative rather than advisory on disclosure obligations. The engineer, as the faithful agent, is the only party positioned to assess the materiality of the complaint relative to the current engagement. This means Engineer A bore the responsibility of evaluating whether the competence allegation raised by Client C was sufficiently related to the services being performed for Client B to warrant disclosure. The Board's conclusion that non-disclosure was ethical implicitly assigns this burden to the engineer but then declines to hold Engineer A accountable for the outcome of that assessment. A more coherent framework would hold that the engineer's duty as faithful agent requires an affirmative materiality assessment whenever a pending complaint arises during an active engagement, and that the result of that assessment — not merely the unresolved status of the complaint — should govern the disclosure decision. Under this framework, the similar-services context in Engineer A's case would have counseled disclosure, even if the allegation-adjudication distinction ultimately permitted silence.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer A had an independent obligation to assess whether the competence concerns raised by Client C had substantive validity, and that self-assessment should have influenced the decision about whether to continue performing similar services for Client B without any disclosure. The NSPE Code's professional competence standard is not merely reactive to external adjudication — it places an affirmative duty on engineers to practice only within their areas of competence. If Engineer A, upon receiving the complaint, conducted an honest self-assessment and concluded that the competence concerns had merit, then continuing to perform similar services for Client B without disclosure would represent a compounded ethical failure: both a potential competence violation and a failure of faithful agency. Conversely, if Engineer A concluded the complaint was without merit, that self-assessment should have been documented and could have informed a contextual disclosure to Client B that framed the complaint accurately. The Board's analysis does not address this self-assessment dimension at all, treating the complaint as purely a disclosure question rather than also a competence question. This omission weakens the Board's conclusion by leaving unexamined the possibility that Engineer A's silence was not merely a permissible exercise of discretion but a failure to engage with the substantive professional question the complaint raised.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The faithful agent obligation and the allegation-adjudication distinction are in genuine tension in this case, and the Board resolves that tension in favor of the distinction without fully accounting for the cost to the faithful agent obligation. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to act in Client B's best interest and to provide Client B with information necessary for informed decision-making about the engagement. A pending competence complaint involving services nearly identical to those being performed for Client B is precisely the kind of information that bears on Client B's ability to make an informed decision — including the decision of whether to seek a second opinion, add oversight mechanisms, or simply be alert to potential quality concerns. The allegation-adjudication distinction correctly holds that an unresolved complaint is not a finding of misconduct and should not be treated as such. But this distinction addresses the epistemic weight of the complaint, not whether the complaint's existence is relevant to Client B's decision-making. These are separate questions. The Board conflates them by treating the allegation-adjudication distinction as a complete answer to the faithful agent obligation, when in fact the distinction only establishes that Engineer A need not represent the complaint as proven misconduct — it does not establish that the complaint's existence is irrelevant to Client B's interests.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: Engineer A's silence about the pending competence complaint, in a context where similar services were being actively rendered to Client B, risks functioning as an implicit representation that no relevant professional concerns exist — which is precisely the kind of misleading omission the honesty and non-deception obligation is designed to prevent. The Board applied a valence-neutral deception standard in the brochure cases, finding that omissions of negative information can be as deceptive as omissions of positive information. Yet the Board declined to apply equivalent scrutiny to Engineer A's silence, treating the privacy right and the allegation-adjudication distinction as sufficient to insulate the non-disclosure from deception analysis. This asymmetry is difficult to justify on principled grounds. A prospective client relying on a firm brochure that omits a departed engineer's name is misled about the firm's current capabilities; a current client who is not informed of a pending competence complaint involving services identical to those being performed is similarly misled — not about a historical credential, but about a live professional risk. The Board's failure to apply the valence-neutral standard consistently across these cases suggests that the allegation-adjudication distinction is doing more work in the Board's reasoning than it can legitimately bear, effectively shielding a potentially material omission from the deception analysis that the Board's own precedents would otherwise require.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The Board's framing of disclosure as merely prudent rather than obligatory does undermine the strength of the faithful agent obligation in contexts where client trust is materially at stake, and this framing creates a problematic precedent. By characterizing voluntary disclosure as wise but not required, the Board effectively establishes that an engineer may remain silent about a pending competence complaint even when the complaint directly parallels active services, so long as the complaint remains unresolved. This standard places the entire burden of relational risk on the client, who has no independent means of discovering the complaint and must rely on the engineer's judgment about what information is relevant to their interests. The prudential disclosure recommendation, while well-intentioned, lacks the normative force needed to give the faithful agent obligation meaningful content in this context. A more coherent resolution would have been to hold that the similar-services context, combined with the faithful agent obligation, created at minimum a strong presumption in favor of disclosure — one that Engineer A could have rebutted by demonstrating that the complaint was frivolous or entirely unrelated to the current engagement. This would have preserved the allegation-adjudication distinction while giving the faithful agent obligation the weight it deserves when a client's informed decision-making is genuinely at stake.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.432723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fully satisfy the duty of faithful agency toward Client B by withholding information about the pending competence complaint, even though the Board concluded the non-disclosure was not unethical. The deontological analysis turns on whether the duty of faithful agency is purely outcome-neutral — concerned only with avoiding active deception — or whether it imposes an affirmative duty to share information that a reasonable client would consider material to their ongoing engagement. The NSPE Code's faithful agent obligation, read in conjunction with the honesty and non-deception provisions, supports the latter interpretation. A faithful agent does not merely refrain from lying; a faithful agent acts in the principal's interest, which includes ensuring the principal has the information needed to protect that interest. Engineer A's decision to withhold information about a complaint that directly implicated the competence being exercised on Client B's project was not consistent with this affirmative conception of faithful agency, regardless of the complaint's unresolved status. The allegation-adjudication distinction is a valid epistemic constraint — it tells us how to characterize the complaint, not whether to disclose its existence. Engineer A could have disclosed the complaint's existence while clearly framing it as an unresolved allegation, thereby satisfying both the faithful agent duty and the allegation-adjudication distinction simultaneously.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's decision not to disclose the pending ethics complaint produced worse overall outcomes than disclosure would have, and this consequentialist assessment reinforces the view that the Board's conclusion — while technically defensible — represents a suboptimal ethical path. The actual outcome was that Client B discovered the complaint through a third party, experienced a loss of trust, and explicitly communicated that Engineer A should have disclosed the matter. This sequence of events produced precisely the relational harm that proactive disclosure was positioned to prevent. Had Engineer A disclosed the complaint with appropriate context — framing it as an unresolved allegation, explaining the nature of the services involved, and affirming confidence in their own competence — Client B would have received the same information but in a form that demonstrated transparency and respect for the client's decision-making autonomy. The consequentialist calculus strongly favors disclosure: the costs of disclosure (potential client concern, awkward conversation) are substantially lower than the costs of non-disclosure followed by third-party discovery (loss of trust, damaged relationship, reputational harm). The Board's conclusion that non-disclosure was ethical is not refuted by this analysis, but the consequentialist framework reveals that the Board's conclusion describes the floor of ethical permissibility, not the ceiling of ethical conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's choice of silence over voluntary disclosure, when a competence allegation directly paralleled the scope of active services being rendered to Client B, reflects a failure of professional integrity — not because silence was prohibited, but because it was inconsistent with the character traits the NSPE Code implicitly demands of licensed engineers. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not merely by whether it complies with rules but by whether it reflects the dispositions of an honest, trustworthy, and client-centered professional. An engineer of genuine integrity, upon receiving a competence complaint involving services nearly identical to those being performed for a current client, would recognize that the client's trust and informed decision-making are values worth protecting even at some personal cost. The decision to remain silent, while technically permissible, reflects a disposition oriented toward self-protection rather than client service. This is not to say Engineer A acted dishonestly in the conventional sense — no false statement was made. But the virtue ethics framework asks whether Engineer A acted as the kind of professional that clients, the public, and the profession itself can trust, and the answer, given the similar-services context and the eventual relational damage, is that Engineer A fell short of that standard.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: The Board's ethical conclusion in the actual case rests almost entirely on the unresolved procedural status of the complaint rather than on any substantive assessment of Engineer A's actual competence, and the hypothetical of a pre-completion adjudicated finding reveals this dependency clearly. If the state licensing board had found Engineer A guilty of the competence violation alleged by Client C before Engineer A completed the project for Client B, the ethical calculus would shift dramatically: an adjudicated finding of incompetence in services nearly identical to those being performed for Client B would almost certainly trigger a disclosure obligation, and continuing to perform those services without disclosure would likely constitute both a competence violation and a faithful agent failure. This hypothetical confirms that the Board's conclusion is procedurally contingent — it holds only because the complaint remained unresolved. What the hypothetical also reveals is that the Board's framework provides no mechanism for evaluating whether the underlying competence concern had merit independent of the adjudication outcome. An engineer who is genuinely incompetent to perform certain services does not become competent by virtue of a complaint remaining unresolved, and a client whose interests are at risk from that incompetence is not protected by the allegation-adjudication distinction. The Board's framework is therefore better understood as a disclosure rule than as a competence protection mechanism, and its ethical adequacy depends on the assumption that the adjudication process will ultimately surface genuine competence failures — an assumption that may not always hold.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.3.a
cited provision2: III.3.a
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: The intermediate disclosure approach — in which Engineer A proactively provides Client B with limited background information about the pending complaint, framing it as an unresolved allegation while affirming confidence in the competence being applied to Client B's project — represents a superior ethical path that the Board's binary framing of the question obscures. This approach would have simultaneously honored the allegation-adjudication distinction (by making clear that the complaint is unproven and contested), satisfied the faithful agent obligation (by ensuring Client B had access to relevant information), and preserved the trust relationship (by ensuring Client B received the information from Engineer A rather than a third party). The Board's analysis treats the question as a binary choice between full disclosure and complete silence, but the ethical landscape between those poles is rich and practically navigable. Engineer A's failure to consider or adopt this intermediate approach represents a missed opportunity to reconcile the competing principles at stake. The Board's prudential recommendation implicitly endorses something like this intermediate approach without naming it, and a more complete analysis would have articulated it explicitly as the ethically optimal course.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.432822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a
cited provision2: III.3.a
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: The counterfactual scenario in which Client B explicitly asked Engineer A at the outset of the engagement whether any ethics complaints or competence challenges had been filed against Engineer A reveals a critical asymmetry in the Board's framework: passive non-disclosure and active deception in response to a direct inquiry are treated as categorically different ethical acts, and rightly so. Had Client B posed such a direct question and Engineer A denied or concealed the existence of the pending complaint, that conduct would constitute a clear violation of the honesty and non-deception provisions of the Code, regardless of the complaint's adjudication status. This scenario demonstrates that the Board's conclusion of ethical non-disclosure is contingent on the absence of a direct inquiry — a contingency the Board does not make explicit. The adequacy of passive non-disclosure as an ethical standard is therefore limited to situations where the client has not affirmatively sought the information. This analysis also reveals that engineers in Engineer A's position bear a heightened obligation to ensure that their silence does not function as an implicit representation that no such complaints exist, particularly when clients might reasonably assume that a retained professional would volunteer such information.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.432911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction and the Faithful Agent Obligation by treating adjudication status as a threshold gate rather than a balancing factor. Under this resolution, the Faithful Agent Obligation does not independently compel disclosure of information that has not been substantiated through a formal proceeding, even when that information is materially relevant to the current engagement. The practical effect is that the Faithful Agent Obligation is subordinated to the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction whenever the underlying information consists solely of an unproven allegation. This prioritization reflects a structural judgment that premature disclosure of unresolved complaints would expose engineers to reputational harm disproportionate to the informational benefit provided to clients, and that the integrity of the adjudicative process itself is a value the Code implicitly protects. However, this resolution leaves unaddressed the scenario where the allegation is domain-specific and directly mirrors the services being rendered to the current client, a factual configuration present in this case that the Board did not treat as independently dispositive. The case therefore teaches that the Faithful Agent Obligation has a ceiling defined by allegation status, but does not clarify whether domain-specific similarity to current services constitutes an exception to that ceiling.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Board's application of the Valence-Neutral Standard in the brochure cases — where it found that omissions of negative information are as ethically problematic as omissions of positive information — stands in unresolved tension with its conclusion that Engineer A's silence about a pending competence complaint was not unethical. In Cases 83-1 and 90-4, the Board found that failing to update a brochure to reflect a departed employee's status was deceptive precisely because it allowed a false impression to persist in the minds of prospective clients, regardless of whether the omitted information was favorable or unfavorable to the firm. Yet in the present case, Engineer A's silence about a pending competence allegation — in a context where Client B was actively relying on Engineer A's competence for similar services — was permitted to stand without equivalent scrutiny. The Board distinguished the cases on the grounds that the brochure omissions involved affirmative misrepresentations embedded in marketing materials, while Engineer A's non-disclosure involved a private professional matter not yet adjudicated. This distinction is defensible but reveals a structural asymmetry: the Valence-Neutral Standard was deployed to police passive omissions in commercial representations but was not extended to police passive omissions in active client relationships where the stakes for the client may be comparably high. The case teaches that the Honesty and Non-Deception Obligation operates more stringently in the context of formal marketing representations than in the context of ongoing service relationships, and that the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction provides a doctrinal escape from the Valence-Neutral Standard that is unavailable in the brochure context.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Board's framing of voluntary disclosure as merely prudent rather than obligatory reveals a structural gap in how the Prudential Disclosure Recommendation interacts with the Faithful Agent Obligation: when the Board declines to convert a prudential recommendation into a binding duty, it effectively places the entire burden of disclosure judgment on the engineer rather than on any objective standard tied to client interest. The Board acknowledged that Engineer A would have been wise to disclose the pending complaint and that the relational damage caused by Client B's third-party discovery was a foreseeable consequence of non-disclosure. Yet it stopped short of finding that this foreseeable relational harm — which Client B explicitly confirmed by expressing that Engineer A should have disclosed — constituted an independent ethical violation. This resolution teaches that the NSPE framework, as applied by the Board, treats client trust as a relational value that engineers are encouraged but not required to protect through proactive disclosure when the information in question has not been adjudicated. The consequence is that the Faithful Agent Obligation is effectively narrowed to cover only affirmative misrepresentations and conflicts of interest, not the full range of information that a reasonable client would consider material to their decision to continue the engagement. Engineers and clients are left without a clear standard for when a pending professional complaint crosses from a private matter into one that the faithful agent duty compels disclosure of, and the burden of that ambiguity falls on the client rather than the engineer.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Continue Rendering Services Post-Complaint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A disclose the pending ethics complaint to Client B, or treat it as a private professional matter protected by the allegation-adjudication distinction?
focus: Engineer A must decide whether to disclose to Client B the existence of a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging incompetence in services materially similar to those currently being performed for Client B. The complaint is unresolved and unproven, but the similar-services context elevates its potential materiality to Client B's ongoing engagement decision.
option1: Proactively inform Client B of the pending complaint at the time it is received, clearly framing it as an unresolved allegation, explaining the nature of the prior services involved, and affirming confidence in competence for the current engagement — thereby satisfying both the faithful agent obligation and the allegation-adjudication distinction simultaneously.
option2: Treat the pending complaint as a private professional matter protected by the allegation-adjudication distinction, declining to disclose it to Client B on the grounds that an unproven allegation does not constitute established fact and could be false, baseless, or maliciously motivated.
option3: Consult the state licensing board or a professional ethics advisor to determine whether the similar-services context creates a heightened disclosure obligation before making a unilateral decision to disclose or remain silent, thereby distributing the burden of the materiality assessment beyond the engineer alone.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A conduct an affirmative self-assessment of the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint and allow that assessment to govern the decision to continue services for Client B, or treat the complaint's unresolved status as sufficient to proceed without further internal review?
focus: Engineer A must independently assess whether the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint have substantive validity — not merely procedural status — and determine whether that self-assessment should influence the decision to continue performing materially similar services for Client B without any disclosure or remediation.
option1: Undertake a documented, honest evaluation of whether the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint have substantive merit relative to the services being performed for Client B, and allow the outcome of that assessment — not merely the complaint's unresolved status — to govern decisions about continuing services and whether to disclose.
option2: Treat the complaint's unresolved procedural status as sufficient grounds to continue performing services for Client B without conducting a separate internal competence review, on the basis that an unproven allegation does not constitute evidence of actual incompetence and should not disrupt an active engagement.
option3: Without disclosing the complaint to Client B, arrange for a qualified peer to independently review the technical work being performed for Client B as a quality assurance measure, thereby addressing the substantive competence concern raised by the complaint while preserving the allegation-adjudication distinction in the client relationship.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should the Board treat the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction as a threshold condition that categorically suspends Engineer A's faithful agent disclosure duty, or should it weigh the similar-services context as a materiality-elevating factor that limits the distinction's override effect?
focus: The Board must determine whether the Faithful Agent Obligation — which requires Engineer A to act in Client B's best interest and enable informed decision-making — is overridden by the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction, or whether the similar-services context creates a heightened materiality that prevents the distinction from functioning as a complete answer to the faithful agent duty.
option1: Treat the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction as a threshold condition that categorically suspends the faithful agent's proactive disclosure duty whenever a complaint remains unresolved, regardless of the degree of overlap between the complaint's subject matter and the current client's services.
option2: Treat the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction as one contextual factor to be weighed against the similar-services materiality elevation, holding that when a pending competence complaint directly parallels active services, the faithful agent obligation creates at minimum a strong presumption in favor of disclosure that the distinction alone cannot override.
option3: Hold that the faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to conduct an affirmative materiality assessment whenever a pending complaint arises during an active engagement, and that the result of that assessment — not merely the complaint's unresolved status — should govern the disclosure decision, with the similar-services context counseling disclosure in this case.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should the Board apply the Valence-Neutral Misleading Information Standard to Engineer A's silence about the pending complaint with the same scrutiny used in the brochure cases, or treat the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction as a principled basis for exempting active-relationship omissions from equivalent deception analysis?
focus: The Board must determine whether the Valence-Neutral Misleading Information Standard — applied in brochure cases to find that omissions of negative information are as deceptive as omissions of positive information — should be applied with equivalent scrutiny to Engineer A's silence about a pending competence complaint in an active client relationship, or whether the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction provides a principled basis for treating these contexts differently.
option1: Extend the same deception scrutiny used in the brochure cases to Engineer A's silence, holding that an omission of a pending competence complaint in an active similar-services context can function as an implicit representation that no relevant professional concerns exist — a misleading impression regardless of the information's negative valence.
option2: Treat the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction as a principled basis for exempting Engineer A's silence from the Valence-Neutral Standard, on the grounds that an unproven complaint differs categorically from a false credential embedded in a marketing document — the distinction addresses the epistemic status of the omitted information, not merely its valence.
option3: Acknowledge that the Valence-Neutral Standard applies in both marketing and active-relationship contexts but with graduated intensity: require Engineer A to assess whether silence in the similar-services context creates a false impression of professional standing, and hold that where it does, the deception analysis applies regardless of the complaint's unresolved status.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the Board frame Engineer A's disclosure decision as merely prudent — leaving the engineer with full discretion — or should it hold that the foreseeable relational harm and similar-services materiality cause the prudential and ethical thresholds to converge, making disclosure effectively obligatory?
focus: The Board must determine whether the Prudential Disclosure Recommendation — framing voluntary disclosure as wise but not obligatory — adequately discharges the Faithful Agent Obligation when non-disclosure foreseeably damages the client relationship and undermines the client's capacity for informed consent, or whether the prudential and ethical thresholds converge in the similar-services context such that the distinction between 'wise' and 'required' collapses.
option1: Characterize voluntary disclosure as wise and professionally advisable while stopping short of declaring it obligatory, preserving engineer discretion on the grounds that an unresolved allegation does not rise to the level of established fact that triggers a mandatory faithful agent disclosure duty.
option2: Find that where non-disclosure foreseeably damages the client relationship, undermines informed consent, and is confirmed by the client as a breach of expected trust, the prudential and ethical thresholds converge — making disclosure effectively obligatory in the similar-services context regardless of the complaint's unresolved status.
option3: Hold that the similar-services context combined with the faithful agent obligation creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of disclosure — one that Engineer A could overcome by demonstrating the complaint was frivolous or entirely unrelated to the current engagement — thereby preserving the allegation-adjudication distinction while giving the faithful agent obligation meaningful normative content.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should the Board's ethical analysis rest on the complaint's unresolved procedural status as categorically sufficient to permit non-disclosure and continuation of services, or should it require an independent substantive assessment of whether the competence concerns had merit before concluding that non-disclosure was ethical?
focus: The Board must determine whether its ethical conclusion — that Engineer A's non-disclosure was permissible — rests on a substantive assessment of Engineer A's actual competence or solely on the procedural status of the complaint as unresolved, and whether this procedural dependency reveals that the allegation-adjudication distinction functions as a disclosure rule rather than a competence protection mechanism.
option1: Hold that the complaint's unresolved procedural status is categorically sufficient to permit both non-disclosure and continuation of services, on the grounds that an unproven allegation does not constitute evidence of actual incompetence and the adjudication process is the appropriate mechanism for surfacing genuine competence failures.
option2: Hold that the NSPE competence standard requires Engineer A to conduct an affirmative self-assessment of whether the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint have substantive merit before concluding that continuation of similar services for Client B is ethically permissible, and that the result of that assessment — not merely the complaint's procedural status — should govern both the continuation and disclosure decisions.
option3: Explicitly separate the disclosure question (governed by the allegation-adjudication distinction) from the competence question (governed by the NSPE competence standard), holding that while non-disclosure may be permissible under the former, the latter independently requires Engineer A to assess whether the competence concerns had merit and to take appropriate remedial action if they did — regardless of the complaint's unresolved status.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.433729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Decide Against Disclosing Ethics Complaint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Decide Against Disclosing Ethics Complaint → Client B Expresses Displeasure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Decide Against Disclosing Ethics Complaint → Client B Learns of Complaint
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation Contextually Applied
type: DepartedEngineerCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Continued listing of departed engineers in firm brochures and resumes after departure
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
balancingwith: Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The case analysis of Cases 83-1 and 90-4 implicitly addresses the departed engineer's position: Engineer A (Case 83-1) and Engineer X (Case 90-4) are the subjects of credential misuse by their former firms, and the Board's analysis establishes the ethical boundaries within which such misuse becomes a violation — informing the departed engineer's understanding of when their name's continued use by a former firm crosses into impermissible misrepresentation.
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: While the Board's primary focus is on the firm principal's obligations, the analysis implicitly informs the departed engineer's own obligation to take corrective action when they become aware that their former firm is misrepresenting their continued affiliation — particularly in the Case 83-1 scenario where the misrepresentation is clear and the departed engineer's name is being used to enhance firm qualifications.
invokedby: Engineer A Terminated Staff Engineer Case 83-1
invokedby: Engineer X Terminated Staff Engineer Case 90-4
principleclass: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination. Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
tensionresolution: The Board's analysis focuses on the firm principal's obligations, leaving the departed engineer's corrective obligations as an implicit corollary — the departed engineer who knows their name is being misused has a professional interest in demanding correction.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continued to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.816384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation Invoked by Engineer A and Engineer X Departures
type: DepartedEngineerCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
appliedto: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4
appliedto: Prospective Clients Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon receiving termination notice or giving notice of departure, Engineer A and Engineer X each had an affirmative obligation to ensure their former firms ceased listing them as current employees in brochures distributed to prospective clients.
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: A departing engineer's professional integrity requires not merely passively accepting credential misuse by a former employer but actively demanding correction, because the engineer's name and qualifications are being used to mislead prospective clients without authorization.
invokedby: Engineer A Terminated Staff Engineer Case 83-1
invokedby: Engineer X Terminated Staff Engineer Case 90-4
principleclass: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer X gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm, after which Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y.
tensionresolution: The engineer's interest in a clean departure does not excuse passive acquiescence to credential misrepresentation; the obligation to demand correction is affirmative and arises immediately upon departure or notice thereof.
textreferences: Engineer A Terminated Staff Engineer Case 83-1: Received termination notice from Engineer B, continued working during notice period, and was subsequently listed as a key employee in firm brochures
textreferences: Engineer X Terminated Staff Engineer Case 90-4: gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm, after which Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.831685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Active Client Relationship with Client B
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention by Client B through the period of service delivery and beyond
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's professional engagement with Client B for design services and CPM schedule on manufacturing facility
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case narrative
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility
triggeringevent: Client B retaining Engineer A to perform design services and prepare a CPM schedule
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.824179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Application in Non-Disclosure Decision
type: AllegationvsAdjudicationDisclosureThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A applied — though arguably incorrectly weighted — the allegation-vs-adjudication distinction in deciding not to disclose the pending ethics complaint to Client B, treating the unproven allegation as not compelling automatic disclosure.
casecontext: Engineer A was subject to a pending ethics complaint by Client C alleging lack of competence while simultaneously rendering similar services to Client B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's decision that it was not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint, relying on the unproven nature of the allegation
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.833154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Invocation in Non-Disclosure Decision
type: AllegationNon-EquivalencetoAdjudicationDisclosureCalibrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A invoked the allegation-adjudication distinction to justify non-disclosure to Client B, reasoning that the complaint was unproven. The Board found this reasoning partially valid but insufficient given the similarity of services and the faithful agent relationship.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Allegation Non-Equivalence to Adjudication Disclosure Calibration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the pending ethics complaint constituted an unproven allegation — not an adjudicated finding — and to calibrate any disclosure decision accordingly, neither treating the allegation as automatically requiring disclosure nor treating the allegation-adjudication distinction as a complete shield against disclosure when the allegation concerned services materially similar to those being performed for Client B.
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the state board notification regarding the pending complaint
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.828772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Allegation Non-Equivalence Disclosure Calibration Client B
type: AllegationNon-EquivalencetoAdjudicationDisclosureCalibrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is subject to a pending ethics complaint by Client C alleging lack of competence for services similar to those being performed for Client B. The Board analyzed whether the allegation status of the complaint affected the disclosure obligation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Allegation Non-Equivalence to Adjudication Disclosure Calibration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C constituted a mere allegation — not a finding of fact or conclusion of law — and therefore was not automatically required to disclose it to Client B, while retaining discretion to weigh all factors and take prudent action proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the charges.
sourcetext: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
temporalscope: During the period the ethics complaint was pending and unresolved
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
textreferences: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.817497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Allegation vs Adjudication Distinction Application Pending Complaint
type: AllegationvsAdjudicationDisclosureThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A had the capability to recognize that the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C constituted a mere allegation — not a finding of fact or conclusion of law — and to use this allegation-vs-adjudication distinction as a key factor in determining that automatic disclosure to Client B was not ethically compelled.
casecontext: Engineer A's pending ethics complaint non-disclosure to Client B — BER applied allegation-vs-adjudication distinction to hold no automatic disclosure obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: BER analysis holding that a pending complaint is a mere allegation that does not compel automatic disclosure, distinguishing it from an adjudicated finding
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.821815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Self-Assessment Obligation Under Pending Complaint
type: CompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client C's allegation that Engineer A lacked competence for services similar to those being performed for Client B placed Engineer A's competence directly at issue. Engineer A's obligation to perform only within areas of competence required honest self-assessment in light of the pending complaint.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to honestly assess whether the pending competence complaint raised legitimate questions about Engineer A's ability to competently perform the materially similar services being provided to Client B, and to take appropriate action — including disclosure, remediation, or referral — if that assessment revealed genuine competence concerns.
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the state board notification regarding the pending complaint
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.832285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Self-Assessment Under Pending Complaint
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to honestly assess whether the pending competence complaint raised legitimate questions about Engineer A's ability to competently perform the current services for Client B — a self-assessment that bears on both the disclosure decision and the ongoing duty of competent service.
casecontext: Engineer A was performing design services and CPM scheduling for Client B while subject to a pending complaint alleging lack of competence for similar prior services
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's continued rendering of design and CPM scheduling services to Client B while subject to a pending competence complaint for similar services
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.834980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Departed Engineer Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
type: DepartedEngineerFirmBrochureCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received termination notice from Engineer B. Engineer B continued to list Engineer A in firm brochures both during the notice period and after actual termination. Engineer A shared responsibility for ensuring this misrepresentation was corrected.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon receiving termination notice from Engineer B, Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's firm brochures and marketing materials no longer listed Engineer A as a current key employee, including notifying Engineer B of the need to update materials and demanding correction if Engineer B failed to act.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of termination notice from Engineer B, and continuing until firm brochures were corrected
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.832722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Case 83-1
type: DepartedEngineerFirmBrochureCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 83-1: Engineer A received termination notice and subsequently departed, but Engineer B continued to list Engineer A as a key employee in firm brochures. Engineer A shared responsibility for correcting this misrepresentation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon receiving termination notice from Engineer B, Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's firm brochures no longer listed Engineer A as a current key employee after actual departure, including notifying Engineer B of the need to update materials.
sourcetext: The case analysis of Cases 83-1 and 90-4 implicitly addresses the departed engineer's position: Engineer A (Case 83-1) and Engineer X (Case 90-4) are each implicitly obligated to ensure their former firms update promotional materials upon departure.
temporalscope: From the date of actual departure from Engineer B's firm
textreferences: The case analysis of Cases 83-1 and 90-4 implicitly addresses the departed engineer's position: Engineer A (Case 83-1) and Engineer X (Case 90-4) are each implicitly obligated to ensure their former firms update promotional materials upon departure.
textreferences: These include the obligations to be truthful in public statements, act as a faithful agent and trustee in dealings with clients, not falsify or misrepresent their professional qualifications, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.818501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Relevance Amplified Disclosure Duty Recognition
type: Domain-RelevanceAmplifiedDisclosureDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Relevance Amplified Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the domain-relevance of the pending complaint — specifically that it concerned services similar to those being performed for Client B — amplified the disclosure obligation beyond what would apply to an unrelated complaint, making disclosure to Client B more ethically compelling.
casecontext: The pending complaint alleged lack of competence for services explicitly similar to those Engineer A was currently performing for Client B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The case facts establishing explicit similarity between the complained-of services and the current engagement, which the BER analysis treats as a factor amplifying the disclosure obligation
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
textreferences: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.835561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
type: EthicsComplaintNon-DisclosingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by state board jurisdiction)', 'specialty': 'Design services and CPM scheduling for manufacturing facilities', 'disclosure_decision': 'Chose not to notify current client of pending ethics complaint', 'complaint_status': 'Subject to pending state board ethics complaint'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design and CPM scheduling services for a manufacturing facility. While rendering those services, Engineer A receives notice from the state board of a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging incompetence on similar services. Engineer A decides not to disclose the complaint to Client B, who later learns of it through a third party and expresses that Engineer A should have disclosed it proactively.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'respondent_before', 'target': 'State Board of Professional Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Client B Manufacturing Facility Design Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_complaint_by', 'target': 'Client C Prior Client Ethics Complainant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility
textreferences: Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Obligation Toward Client B Complaint Context
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board acknowledged Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B as a relevant ethical duty but held that it did not override the allegation-adjudication distinction in the disclosure analysis.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's faithful agent and trustee obligation to Client B required transparency about material professional circumstances, but this obligation did not automatically compel disclosure of the pending ethics complaint because the complaint was an unproven allegation rather than an adjudicated finding.
sourcetext: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement with Client B
textreferences: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
textreferences: These include the obligations to be truthful in public statements, act as a faithful agent and trustee in dealings with clients, not falsify or misrepresent their professional qualifications, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.818031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Transparency Obligation Toward Client B
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's role as faithful agent to Client B required transparency about the pending ethics complaint. Client B's subsequent upset upon learning through a third party confirmed that the information was material to the client relationship.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as faithful agent and trustee of Client B, was obligated to be transparent about material professional circumstances — specifically the pending competence complaint for similar services — that could affect Client B's ability to make informed decisions about the engagement.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the engagement with Client B, from the time of the state board notification
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.832125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Transparency Toward Client B
type: FaithfulAgentandTrusteeConfidentialityObligationSourceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the faithful agent and trustee obligation toward Client B encompassed a duty of transparency about material professional circumstances — including the pending competence complaint — and that this obligation was the source of the disclosure duty independent of any explicit contractual requirement.
casecontext: Engineer A served as Client B's retained engineer for design and CPM scheduling, creating a faithful agent relationship that carried transparency obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Client B's expressed expectation that Engineer A 'should have brought the matter to Client B's attention,' reflecting the client's understanding of the faithful agent transparency norm
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.835116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint
type: LicenseeSubjecttoProfessionalConductComplaint
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'complaint_allegation': 'Lacked competence to perform services similar to those currently being rendered', 'complainant': 'Client C', 'regulatory_body': 'State board of professional engineers', 'concurrent_engagement': 'Actively rendering similar services to Client B during complaint period'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A is the named subject of a formal ethics complaint filed by Client C with the state board of professional engineers, alleging lack of competence to perform the services in question. This regulatory respondent status runs concurrently with Engineer A's active service delivery to Client B.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:14.483493+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'complained_against_by', 'target': 'Client C Prior Client Ethics Complainant'}
relationships: {'type': 'concurrent_provider_to', 'target': 'Client B Manufacturing Facility Design Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'respondent_to', 'target': 'State Board of Professional Engineers'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint
sourcetext: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Allegation Prudential Disclosure Weighing Client B
type: PendingAllegationPrudentialDisclosureWeighingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to proactively disclose the pending complaint to Client B, who subsequently learned of it through a third party, damaging the professional relationship. The Board recommended — without imposing a mandatory obligation — that Engineer A should have weighed providing limited background information.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pending Allegation Prudential Disclosure Weighing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to actively weigh all relevant factors — including the nature and seriousness of the competence charges, the potential impact on Client B, and the risk of Client B learning through third parties — and to consider providing Client B with limited, dispassionate background information about the pending complaint, even though automatic disclosure was not ethically required.
sourcetext: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
temporalscope: Upon becoming aware of the pending complaint and throughout the engagement with Client B
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
textreferences: On this last point, while the Board is not suggesting that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against him by Client C, the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.817681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Client B
type: PendingCompetenceComplaintDisclosureObligationtoCurrentClient
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is retained by Client B for design and CPM scheduling services on a manufacturing facility. While performing those services, Engineer A is subject to a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging lack of competence for similar services. Client B later learns of the complaint through a third party.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Current Client
obligationstatement: Engineer A faced a disclosure obligation analysis regarding the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C: the Board held that while the faithful agent relationship and the materiality of the complaint to Client B's decision-making were relevant, the allegation status of the complaint meant that automatic disclosure was not ethically compelled, though prudential disclosure was recommended.
sourcetext: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
temporalscope: Throughout the period the ethics complaint was pending while Engineer A was engaged by Client B
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
textreferences: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Competence Complaint Materiality-to-Current-Services Assessment
type: PendingCompetenceComplaintMateriality-to-Current-ServicesAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pending Competence Complaint Materiality-to-Current-Services Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A had the capability to assess whether the subject matter of the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C — alleging lack of competence in services similar to those being performed for Client B — was materially similar to the current engagement with Client B, and to use that similarity assessment as a factor in determining whether disclosure was warranted.
casecontext: Engineer A's pending competence complaint from Client C while performing similar services for Client B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER analysis noting that the nature and seriousness of the competence charges, including their similarity to current services, should inform Engineer A's disclosure weighing
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Competence Complaint Non-Disclosure to Client B
type: PendingCompetenceComplaintDisclosureObligationtoCurrentClient
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Client B for design and CPM scheduling services on a manufacturing facility. While performing those services, Engineer A was contacted by the state board regarding a complaint by Client C alleging incompetence in similar services. Engineer A chose not to disclose this to Client B. Client B later learned through a third party and expressed that Engineer A should have disclosed.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Current Client
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to weigh whether to disclose to Client B the existence of the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging incompetence in services materially similar to those being performed for Client B, and given the similarity of services and the faithful agent relationship, prudential disclosure to Client B was warranted even though the complaint was an unproven allegation.
sourcetext: During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of notification from the state board of professional engineers regarding the pending ethics complaint, and throughout the duration of the engagement with Client B
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.828623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Complaint Faithful Agent Proactive Disclosure Weighing
type: PendingEthicsComplaintFaithfulAgentProactiveDisclosureWeighingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pending Ethics Complaint Faithful Agent Proactive Disclosure Weighing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to weigh the faithful agent and trustee obligation toward Client B against the unproven nature of the pending complaint, and to reach a principled conclusion about whether proactive disclosure was ethically required — a weighing Engineer A performed but resolved in favor of non-disclosure.
casecontext: Engineer A was simultaneously subject to a pending competence complaint and rendering similar services to Client B, creating a faithful agent transparency tension
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's decision not to notify Client B, and Client B's subsequent upset upon learning of the complaint through a third party
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.834686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Client B
type: PendingComplaintLimitedBackgroundInformationProvisionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A did not proactively inform Client B of the pending complaint. Client B later learned of it through a third party. The Board recommended this course of action as prudentially advisable for the benefit of all concerned.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A should have considered providing Client B with limited, dispassionate, and non-prejudicial background information about the pending ethics complaint so that Client B could respond to third-party inquiries and so that Engineer A could demonstrate professional transparency and good faith, even though this was not a mandatory ethical obligation.
sourcetext: By doing so, Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B will be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties and would be demonstrating to Client B that Engineer A is acting in a professional and responsible manner and has nothing to hide or fear concerning the complaint.
temporalscope: Before Client B learned of the complaint through third parties
textreferences: By doing so, Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B will be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties and would be demonstrating to Client B that Engineer A is acting in a professional and responsible manner and has nothing to hide or fear concerning the complaint.
textreferences: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.817864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Toward Client B
type: PendingComplaintLimitedBackgroundInformationProvisionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A had the capability — and the BER indicated should have exercised it — to provide Client B with limited, dispassionate, and non-prejudicial background information about the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, enabling Client B to respond to third-party inquiries and demonstrating professional transparency.
casecontext: Engineer A's decision not to disclose the pending ethics complaint to Client B — BER found no strict obligation but recommended weighing voluntary background information provision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: BER recommendation that Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with appropriate background information in a dispassionate and non-prejudicial manner
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned.
textreferences: By doing so, Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B will be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties and would be demonstrating to Client B that Engineer A is acting in a professional and responsible manner and has nothing to hide or fear concerning the complaint.
textreferences: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.821524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Complaint Materiality-to-Current-Services Assessment
type: PendingCompetenceComplaintMateriality-to-Current-ServicesAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pending Competence Complaint Materiality-to-Current-Services Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to assess whether the competence complaint filed by Client C — relating to services similar to those being performed for Client B — was materially similar enough to the current engagement to amplify the disclosure obligation toward Client B.
casecontext: The complained-of services for Client C were explicitly similar to the current services for Client B, making the similarity-of-services materiality assessment central to the disclosure decision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The case facts establishing that Client C's complaint concerned services 'similar to the services being performed for Client B,' creating a direct materiality nexus that Engineer A failed to adequately weigh
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.834836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Ethics Complaint Faithful Agent Disclosure Weighing Toward Client B
type: PendingEthicsComplaintFaithfulAgentProactiveDisclosureWeighingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pending Ethics Complaint Faithful Agent Proactive Disclosure Weighing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A had the capability to weigh the faithful agent and trustee obligation toward Client B against the allegation-vs-adjudication distinction, and to reach a principled conclusion about whether proactive disclosure of the pending ethics complaint was ethically required, prudentially advisable, or permissibly withheld.
casecontext: Engineer A's decision regarding disclosure of pending Client C ethics complaint to current Client B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: BER analysis of Engineer A's disclosure weighing obligation, concluding that while automatic disclosure was not required, Engineer A should have weighed providing limited background information
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action
textreferences: the Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.821952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Ethics Complaint While Serving Client B
type: PendingEthicsComplaintNon-DisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the filing of the ethics complaint by Client C through the period of Engineer A's active engagement with Client B
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Client C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State engineering licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board
stateclass: Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A subject to a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C while actively serving Client B
terminatedby: Resolution of the complaint or termination of the Client B engagement
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
textreferences: the Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board
triggeringevent: Client C filing an ethics complaint against Engineer A with the state engineering licensure board
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.827805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Departure Firm Brochure Correction Initiation
type: Post-DepartureFirmBrochurePersonnelListingCorrectionInitiationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to take affirmative steps upon receiving termination notice to ensure that Engineer B's firm brochures and marketing materials were corrected to remove Engineer A's name and credentials.
casecontext: Upon receiving termination notice from Engineer B, Engineer A had an affirmative duty to ensure the firm's marketing materials were corrected to reflect Engineer A's departure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to affirmatively act to correct Engineer B's firm brochures upon receiving termination notice, as established in the case analysis
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's firm brochures and marketing materials were corrected
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's firm brochures and marketing materials were corrected
textreferences: Received termination notice from Engineer B, continued working during notice period, and was subsequently listed as a key employee in firm brochures after actual termination
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.836112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent Triangulation for Personal Disclosure Obligation
type: PrecedentTriangulationforPersonalDisclosureObligationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent Triangulation for Personal Disclosure Obligation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to synthesize relevant BER precedents — including cases involving pending complaints, personal misconduct, and the allegation-vs-adjudication distinction — to correctly calibrate the disclosure obligation applicable to the pending competence complaint situation.
casecontext: Engineer A faced a novel disclosure decision requiring synthesis of multiple precedents to determine the applicable standard
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The ethical analysis required to determine whether the pending complaint triggered a disclosure obligation to Client B, drawing on precedents distinguishing allegations from adjudicated findings
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.835408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Prudential Disclosure Weighing Toward Client B
type: PendingAllegationPrudentialDisclosureWeighingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to engage in adequate prudential weighing, defaulting to non-disclosure without fully accounting for the material similarity of services and the relational consequences of Client B learning through a third party.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pending Allegation Prudential Disclosure Weighing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to actively weigh all relevant factors — including the nature of the competence allegation, its similarity to services being performed for Client B, the risk of Client B learning through third parties, and the faithful agent relationship — and to take prudent action proportionate to those factors, which in this case warranted proactive disclosure to Client B.
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the state board notification and throughout the engagement with Client B
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.831979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Prudential Foresight of Relational Consequence of Non-Disclosure
type: PrudentialPre-DisclosureRelationalConsequenceForesightCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prudential Pre-Disclosure Relational Consequence Foresight Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to apply the prudential foresight capability to anticipate that Client B's discovery of the pending complaint through a third party — rather than through Engineer A's own disclosure — would damage the professional relationship and undermine Client B's trust, a consequence that proactive disclosure could have mitigated.
casecontext: Engineer A chose not to disclose the pending complaint; Client B subsequently learned of it through a third party and expressed upset at not having been informed directly
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Client B's upset upon learning of the complaint through 'another party' rather than from Engineer A directly, demonstrating the relational harm of non-disclosure
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
textreferences: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.835265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Terminated Staff Engineer Case 83-1
type: TerminatedStaffEngineerSubjecttoCredentialMisuse
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'firm_role': 'Key employee', 'departure_status': 'Terminated — first given notice, then actually terminated'}
caseinvolvement: Received termination notice from Engineer B, continued working during notice period, and was subsequently listed as a key employee in firm brochures both during and after the termination period without accurate disclosure of departure status.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'credential_misused_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal'}
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Terminated Staff Engineer Subject to Credential Misuse
sourcetext: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
textreferences: Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.829065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Valence-Neutral Misleading Omission Non-Disclosure Pending Complaint
type: Valence-NeutralMisleadingOmissionNon-DisclosureProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A did not disclose to Client B a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging lack of competence for similar services. The Board analyzed whether the negative valence of the complaint information changed the disclosure analysis.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Valence-Neutral Misleading Omission Non-Disclosure Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to apply the same honesty standard to the pending ethics complaint as would apply to any other material information, recognizing that the valence of the information — whether it reflects positively or negatively — does not alter the operative question of whether its omission misleads or deceives Client B.
sourcetext: However, the Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of active engagement with Client B while the complaint was pending
textreferences: However, the Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
textreferences: The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4 , because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had. In contrast, the present case involves a situation that could reflect negatively on Engineer A and his firm.
textreferences: The issue of greatest importance in each of these cases appears not to be whether a client would be pleased or disappointed with the information, but whether the information communicated (or in the present case not communicated) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.817342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A Voluntary Background Disclosure Opportunity to Client B
type: PendingComplaintVoluntaryBackgroundDisclosureOpportunityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A weighs the disclosure decision through the time Client B might encounter third-party inquiries
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned
stateclass: Pending Complaint Voluntary Background Disclosure Opportunity State
subject: Engineer A's discretionary opportunity to provide Client B with limited background information about the pending complaint, not as a mandatory obligation but as a prudent professional act
terminatedby: Engineer A's decision to provide or withhold background information, or resolution of the complaint
textreferences: By doing so, Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B will be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties
textreferences: demonstrating to Client B that Engineer A is acting in a professional and responsible manner and has nothing to hide or fear concerning the complaint
textreferences: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned
triggeringevent: Board's determination that while disclosure is not mandatory, voluntary limited disclosure would be prudent
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.828276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A preparing plans, specifications, and CPM schedule during ethics complaint pending with state board
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A retained by Client B / rendering of design services overlaps state board contact regarding ethics complaint from Client C
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A's non-disclosure decision before Client B's expression of displeasure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer A's receipt of ethics complaint notice before Client B learning of the complaint through a third party
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Modeling
type: BrochureReaderReasonableExpectationModelingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Modeling Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to model the reasonable expectations of prospective clients reading the firm brochure — specifically that named key employees are currently employed by the firm — and to use that modeled expectation to recognize that continued listing of Engineer A after departure was misleading.
casecontext: Prospective clients reading Engineer B's firm brochure would reasonably assume that Engineer A, listed as a key employee, was currently available to work on their projects
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The case establishing that prospective clients reasonably relied on firm brochures listing personnel qualifications, assuming named individuals were currently employed
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Prospective clients who read and relied upon engineering firm brochures listing personnel qualifications, reasonably assuming that named individuals were currently employed
textreferences: Prospective clients who read and relied upon engineering firm brochures listing personnel qualifications, reasonably assuming that named individuals were currently employed
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.835970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
type: Credential-MisrepresentingFirmPrincipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'firm_role': 'Firm owner/principal', 'violation_finding': "Unethical to distribute brochure after Engineer A's actual termination"}
caseinvolvement: Distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination, constituting a misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications in violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Terminated Staff Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicits', 'target': 'Prospective Clients Relying on Firm Brochure'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.828921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Distributes Brochure Post-Termination
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Distributes Brochure Post-Termination → Misrepresentation of Firm Personnel
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Distributes Brochure Pre-Termination
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Firm Brochure Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction Obligation
type: FirmPrincipalPost-DeparturePersonnelListingCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during Engineer A's notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination, misleading prospective clients about the firm's current personnel qualifications.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to promptly remove Engineer A from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving notice of Engineer A's termination or departure, and to refrain from distributing any materials listing Engineer A as a current key employee after Engineer A's departure.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Upon issuance of termination notice to Engineer A, and no later than Engineer A's actual departure date
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.832423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Firm Brochure Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal
type: FirmPrincipalPost-DeparturePersonnelListingPromptRemovalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to promptly remove Engineer A from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving notice of Engineer A's termination, and failed to do so by continuing to distribute brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee.
casecontext: Engineer B received termination notice from Engineer A but continued to list Engineer A in firm marketing materials, constituting deceptive advertising
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's continued distribution of firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B was obligated to promptly remove Engineer A from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving notice of Engineer A's termination
textreferences: Distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination
textreferences: Engineer B was obligated to promptly remove Engineer A from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving notice of Engineer A's termination
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.835698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment BER 83-1
type: BrochureDistributionIntent-and-PurposeEvidenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated capability to assess Engineer B's intent-and-purpose in distributing the misleading brochure, using circumstantial evidence — Engineer B's actual knowledge of the termination (as the terminating party), the timing of distribution during and after the notice period, and the brochure's emphasis on Engineer A as a key employee — to conclude that the intent-and-purpose element of the II.5.a test was satisfied.
casecontext: BER Case 83-1 — assessment of Engineer B's intent in distributing brochures listing Engineer A as key employee after termination
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Circumstantial evidence analysis establishing Engineer B's intent to enhance firm qualifications through continued post-termination brochure distribution in BER Case 83-1
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: a second point we considered was whether it was the 'intent and purpose' of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work' by including Engineer A's name in the promotional brochure after Engineer A left the firm.
textreferences: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A, as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
textreferences: a second point we considered was whether it was the 'intent and purpose' of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work' by including Engineer A's name in the promotional brochure after Engineer A left the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.821672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Key Employee Brochure Listing Prospective Client Reliance Non-Misleading Case 83-1
type: KeyEmployeeBrochureListingProspectiveClientRelianceNon-MisleadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 83-1: Engineer B distributed brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination, misleading prospective clients about Engineer A's availability for future projects.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Key Employee Brochure Listing Prospective Client Reliance Non-Misleading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the listing of Engineer A as a 'key employee' in firm brochures accurately reflected Engineer A's current employment status, recognizing that prospective clients materially rely on such listings when selecting engineering firms and may have prior familiarity with the named individual.
sourcetext: We said that the names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm. The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure.
temporalscope: From the date of termination notice through and after Engineer A's actual departure
textreferences: The Board noted that this could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
textreferences: We concluded that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: We said that the names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm. The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.818189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to maintain accurate and current firm marketing materials that truthfully represented the firm's actual personnel, and failed to exercise this capability by continuing to list Engineer A after departure.
casecontext: Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's termination, misleading prospective clients about the firm's staffing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's failure to update firm brochures after Engineer A's termination, resulting in deceptive advertising to prospective clients
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination, constituting deceptive advertising
textreferences: Distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination, constituting deceptive advertising
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.835834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Disclosure Obligation BER 83-1
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B had the capability to maintain accurate and current firm brochures during the notice period by apprising prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termination during negotiations — a capability the BER found was exercised permissibly during the notice period but violated after actual termination.
casecontext: BER Case 83-1 — Engineer B's brochure distribution during Engineer A's notice period with and without disclosure of pending termination
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling that distribution during notice period was permissible if Engineer B apprised prospective clients of pending termination, but impermissible after actual departure
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
textreferences: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Violation Case 83-1 Post-Termination
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 83-1: Engineer B terminated Engineer A for lack of work, then continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination, as both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test were satisfied: Engineer A's name was a pertinent fact material to client selection, and Engineer B's distribution was made with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications.
sourcetext: We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a to exist.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications, and, as such, constituted a violation of the NSPE Code.
textreferences: We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a to exist.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.816734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Listing Prohibition Case 83-1
type: Post-Actual-DepartureBrochurePersonnelListingProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 83-1: Engineer B continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name well after Engineer A's actual termination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Personnel Listing Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was absolutely obligated to cease distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination and departure from the firm.
sourcetext: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.817047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation BER 83-1
type: Post-DepartureFirmBrochurePersonnelListingCorrectionInitiationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation Capability
capabilitystatement: Both Engineer A (as the departing engineer) and Engineer B (as the firm principal) had the capability to initiate prompt correction of firm brochures to remove Engineer A's listing as a key employee upon the termination notice and actual departure — a capability that Engineer B failed to exercise after Engineer A's actual termination.
casecontext: BER Case 83-1 — Engineer B's failure to update brochures after Engineer A's actual termination
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling that Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A after actual termination was unethical, implying the obligation and capability to correct the materials
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (as departing engineer) and Engineer B (as firm principal)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Distribution (Case 83-1)
type: Post-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A was given termination notice through the period after Engineer A's actual departure from the firm
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients of Engineer B's firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Engineer B's continued use of promotional brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination
terminatedby: Not described as terminated in the text; the ethical violation is the continuation itself
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
textreferences: it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination
triggeringevent: Engineer B's decision to continue distributing the previously printed brochure after notifying Engineer A of termination
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.824026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Termination Notice Brochure Personnel Disclosure Case 83-1 Notice Period
type: Post-TerminationNoticeBrochurePersonnelDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 83-1: Engineer B distributed previously printed brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period after termination notice was given.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Post-Termination Notice Brochure Personnel Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: During the period after Engineer A received termination notice but before actual departure, Engineer B was obligated to apprise prospective clients during negotiations of Engineer A's pending termination when distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee.
sourcetext: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
temporalscope: During the notice period between termination notice and Engineer A's actual departure
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination. The Board noted that this could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
textreferences: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.816892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Pre-Termination Brochure Distribution with Pending Notice (Case 83-1)
type: Post-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of termination notice to Engineer A's actual departure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Engineer B's distribution of brochure listing Engineer A as key employee during the notice period before actual termination
terminatedby: Engineer A's actual termination from the firm
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination
textreferences: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination
triggeringevent: Engineer B issuing termination notice to Engineer A while continuing to distribute brochure
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.827458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Brochure Distribution Case 83-1
type: TruthfulandNon-DeceptiveAdvertisingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 83-1: Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after actual termination violated the truthful and non-deceptive advertising obligation under NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, II.4.a, II.5.a, and III.3.a.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that all firm promotional brochures were truthful and non-deceptive, including by not distributing materials listing Engineer A as a current key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
sourcetext: The obligation of the engineer to be honest and truthful and to avoid acts that might be viewed as misleading and deceptive is clearly stated in various sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics (See NSPE Code Sections II.3.a., II.4.a, II.5.a. and III.3.a.).
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to be honest and truthful and to avoid acts that might be viewed as misleading and deceptive is clearly stated in various sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics (See NSPE Code Sections II.3.a., II.4.a, II.5.a. and III.3.a.).
textreferences: These include the obligations to be truthful in public statements, act as a faithful agent and trustee in dealings with clients, not falsify or misrepresent their professional qualifications, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.818356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Regarding Personnel
type: TruthfulandNon-DeceptiveAdvertisingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after departure misled prospective clients about the firm's personnel composition and qualifications.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that all firm brochures and marketing materials accurately represented the firm's current personnel, and to refrain from distributing materials that listed Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's departure, as such distribution constituted deceptive advertising about the firm's qualifications.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Ongoing; specifically triggered upon Engineer A's departure from the firm
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.832574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer B's License Expires
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer X Departed Engineer Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation Case 90-4
type: DepartedEngineerFirmBrochureCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y to move to another firm. Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures listing Engineer X as a current employee after departure. Engineer X shared responsibility for demanding correction of this misrepresentation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer X
obligationclass: Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, Engineer X was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Firm Y's brochures and marketing materials no longer listed Engineer X as a current employee, including notifying Engineer Z of the need to update materials.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Upon giving notice of departure from Firm Y, and continuing until firm brochures were corrected
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.832992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer X Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Case 90-4
type: DepartedEngineerFirmBrochureCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 90-4: Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, after which Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee. The Board found Engineer Z's conduct not unethical under the circumstances, but Engineer X retained a shared responsibility to ensure correction.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer X
obligationclass: Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, Engineer X was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Firm Y's brochures and firm resume no longer listed Engineer X as a current employee after actual departure.
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gave two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm. Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continued to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: From the date of actual departure from Firm Y
textreferences: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gave two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm. Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continued to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.818758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer X Departs Firm Y
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer X Post-Departure Firm Brochure Correction Initiation Case 90-4
type: Post-DepartureFirmBrochurePersonnelListingCorrectionInitiationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X was required to take affirmative steps upon giving two weeks notice of departure to ensure that Firm Y's brochures and marketing materials were corrected to remove Engineer X's name and credentials.
casecontext: Upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, Engineer X had an affirmative duty to ensure the firm's marketing materials were corrected to reflect Engineer X's departure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer X's obligation to affirmatively act to correct Firm Y's marketing materials upon giving notice of departure, as established in Case 90-4
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, Engineer X was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Firm Y's brochures and marketing materials were corrected
textreferences: Upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, Engineer X was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Firm Y's brochures and marketing materials were corrected
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.836407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer X Terminated Staff Engineer Case 90-4
type: TerminatedStaffEngineerSubjecttoCredentialMisuse
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'firm_role': 'Associate with hydrology expertise', 'departure_status': 'Gave two weeks notice; departure pending'}
caseinvolvement: One of few engineers in Firm Y with hydrology expertise; gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm, after which Engineer Z continued to list her in firm brochures and resumes.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'credential_misused_by', 'target': 'Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4'}
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Terminated Staff Engineer Subject to Credential Misuse
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of the few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology
textreferences: Engineer X is one of the few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gave two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.829370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer X's two-week notice (Case 90-4) before Engineer Z continuing to distribute brochure listing Engineer X (Case 90-4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Continues Listing Departed Engineer X
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Continues Listing Departed Engineer X → Misrepresentation of Firm Personnel
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4
type: Credential-MisrepresentingFirmPrincipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'firm_role': 'Principal of medium-sized consulting firm', 'violation_finding': 'Not unethical under the specific circumstances'}
caseinvolvement: Continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure. Board found this not unethical given that Engineer X was not highlighted as a 'key employee' and the firm's hydrology work was not a significant percentage of its practice.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer X Terminated Staff Engineer Case 90-4'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicits', 'target': 'Prospective Clients Relying on Firm Brochure'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continued to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continued to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.829222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Firm Brochure Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction Obligation Case 90-4
type: FirmPrincipalPost-DeparturePersonnelListingCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure, misleading prospective clients about the firm's hydrology expertise and personnel.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:39:30.231972+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z
obligationclass: Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z was obligated to promptly remove Engineer X from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice of departure, and to refrain from distributing any materials listing Engineer X as a current employee of Firm Y after Engineer X's departure.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer X's two-week departure notice, and no later than Engineer X's actual departure date
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.832859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Firm Brochure Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal Case 90-4
type: FirmPrincipalPost-DeparturePersonnelListingPromptRemovalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z was required to promptly remove Engineer X from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice of departure, and failed to do so by continuing to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y.
casecontext: Engineer Z received two weeks notice from Engineer X but continued to list Engineer X in firm marketing materials, constituting deceptive advertising to prospective clients
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:21.524548+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer Z was obligated to promptly remove Engineer X from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice
textreferences: Continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure
textreferences: Engineer Z was obligated to promptly remove Engineer X from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.836269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction BER 90-4
type: FirmPrincipalPost-DeparturePersonnelListingPromptRemovalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z, as principal of Firm Y, had the capability to assess whether continued listing of Engineer X after departure notice was permissible under the totality of circumstances — and the BER found it was permissible given Engineer X's non-key-employee status and the non-materiality of the departure to the firm's overall qualification profile.
casecontext: BER Case 90-4 — Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X after two-week departure notice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: BER Case 90-4 analysis finding Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X permissible given the non-key-employee factual context
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:50:17.550673+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
textreferences: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of the few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology did not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Non-Key-Employee Departed Engineer Brochure Listing Case 90-4
type: Non-Key-EmployeeDepartedEngineerBrochureListingContextualPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 90-4: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure. Engineer X had hydrology expertise but hydrology was not a significant portion of the firm's work.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:47:26.067073+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer Z
obligationclass: Non-Key-Employee Departed Engineer Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z was obligated to assess whether Engineer X's departure materially altered Firm Y's overall qualification profile; because hydrology was not a significant percentage of the firm's work, continued listing of Engineer X did not constitute an overt misrepresentation of a pertinent fact under the circumstances.
sourcetext: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
temporalscope: During the two-week notice period after Engineer X gave notice of departure
textreferences: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of the few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology did not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.817190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Engineer Z Post-Notice Brochure Distribution (Case 90-4)
type: Post-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer X's two-weeks notice through the period of continued brochure use
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continued to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochure listing Engineer X as an employee after Engineer X gave two weeks notice
terminatedby: Not described; Board found this not unethical given the circumstances
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continued to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described
triggeringevent: Engineer X giving notice of intent to move to another firm
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.827644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Ethics_Complaint_Disclosure_Standard
type: EthicsComplaintDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Ethics Complaint Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Ethics Complaint Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
usedby: Engineer A in deciding not to notify Client B; Client B in asserting Engineer A should have disclosed
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer A has an ethical obligation to proactively disclose to Client B the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, particularly given that the complaint concerns competence in services similar to those being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.825334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Ethics Complaint Disclosure Standard - Client Notification
type: EthicsComplaintDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code obligations)
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Ethics Complaint Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Ethics Complaint Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
textreferences: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's disclosure obligations to Client B
usedincontext: Normative standard applied to determine whether Engineer A had an ethical obligation to disclose a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C to current Client B; the Board concludes no automatic obligation exists but prudent background communication may be advisable
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.827102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Ethics Complaint Filed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation — Engineer A Pending Complaint
type: FaithfulAgentDisclosureScopeLimitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained as faithful agent by Client B; the pending complaint by Client C created a question about whether faithful agent duties required proactive disclosure
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's duty as faithful agent and trustee to Client B did not automatically extend to compelled disclosure of the pending, unadjudicated ethics complaint filed by Client C, constraining the over-extension of the faithful agent duty to encompass personal professional allegations that had not been adjudicated and whose materiality to the current engagement required case-specific assessment rather than automatic disclosure.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.3.a; BER Case 97-11
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
temporalscope: Throughout the active engagement with Client B
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.833740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Toward Client B
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Manufacturing Facility Design Client
appliedto: Design and CPM scheduling engagement for manufacturing facility
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's role as faithful agent and trustee of Client B required transparency about material professional circumstances — specifically the pending competence complaint — that could affect Client B's confidence in and decision to continue retaining Engineer A.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent duty encompasses not merely technical performance but also transparency about professional circumstances that materially affect the client's ability to evaluate the engagement; a pending competence complaint for similar services is such a circumstance.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
tensionresolution: Faithful agent duty reinforces the disclosure obligation; the engineer's self-interest in avoiding disclosure does not override the client's right to material information about the engineer's professional standing.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility
textreferences: Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.830867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked in Complaint Non-Disclosure Analysis
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's ongoing service relationship with Client B during pending ethics complaint
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledges that Engineer A's faithful agent and trustee obligation to Client B is a relevant ethical duty but holds that this obligation does not automatically compel disclosure of a pending ethics complaint — because the complaint is a mere allegation, not a finding — while still recommending that Engineer A consider providing background information in service of the faithful agent relationship.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation requires transparency about material professional circumstances, but its scope is calibrated by the evidentiary status of the information: unproven allegations do not automatically become material facts that the faithful agent must disclose, though the faithful agent relationship may counsel prudential disclosure.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
tensionresolution: The Board holds that faithful agent obligations do not override the engineer's right to protect against disclosure of potentially false, baseless, or maliciously motivated allegations, but that the faithful agent relationship is best served by prudential voluntary disclosure.
textreferences: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.814631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer B Failure to Update Brochures
type: Firm-LevelTitleAuditandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm brochures listing departed engineers as current employees
appliedto: Prospective Clients Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's failure to audit and update firm brochures upon Engineer A's departure — and Engineer Z's parallel failure regarding Engineer X — constituted a failure to take affirmative corrective action to prevent misleading prospective clients about current firm personnel.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Upon an engineer's departure or notice of departure, the firm bears an immediate obligation to audit and correct all public-facing materials that list that engineer as current personnel; continued distribution without correction is an affirmative ethical violation.
invokedby: Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4
principleclass: Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm.
tensionresolution: The firm's corrective disclosure obligation is not contingent on the departed engineer's consent or cooperation; the obligation arises from the firm's own duty to prospective clients.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination
textreferences: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.831348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Honesty and Non-Deception Obligation Invoked as Baseline Framework
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm brochure personnel listings
appliedto: Non-disclosure of pending ethics complaint to current client
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board grounds its entire analysis in the NSPE Code's multiple honesty and non-deception provisions — truthfulness in public statements, faithful agent and trustee obligations, prohibition on falsifying professional qualifications, and prohibition on material misrepresentations — establishing these as the baseline from which both the brochure misrepresentation analysis and the complaint non-disclosure analysis proceed.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The honesty obligation is multi-dimensional in this case: it applies to affirmative misrepresentations in promotional materials (brochure cases) and to omissions that could mislead clients (complaint non-disclosure case), with the same analytical framework governing both directions of potential deception.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
invokedby: Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: The obligation of the engineer to be honest and truthful and to avoid acts that might be viewed as misleading and deceptive is clearly stated in various sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
tensionresolution: The Board resolves the tension by holding that honesty obligations do not automatically compel disclosure of unproven allegations, but do require the engineer to weigh whether non-disclosure would mislead the client — with prudential disclosure recommended as the professionally responsible course.
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to be honest and truthful and to avoid acts that might be viewed as misleading and deceptive is clearly stated in various sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics (See NSPE Code Sections II.3.a., II.4.a, II.5.a. and III.3.a.).
textreferences: These include the obligations to be truthful in public statements, act as a faithful agent and trustee in dealings with clients, not falsify or misrepresent their professional qualifications, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.825786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked by Engineer B Brochure Misrepresentation
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Prospective Clients Relying on Firm Brochure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's continued listing of Engineer A (and Engineer Z's listing of Engineer X) as current key employees in firm brochures after their departure constituted a dishonest representation of firm qualifications and capabilities to prospective clients.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Representing departed engineers as current employees in qualification brochures is a false statement of material fact about the firm's personnel resources, violating the core professional honesty obligation.
invokedby: Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination.
tensionresolution: No competing principle justifies continued distribution of materially false personnel information; the obligation to correct is clear.
textreferences: Board found that Engineer Z acted unethically
textreferences: Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination
textreferences: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.831519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

II.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Information Valence Non-Determinative Deception Standard Engineer A Case 97-11
type: InformationValenceNon-DeterminativeDeceptionStandardConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly held that the valence of information — whether positive or negative — is irrelevant to the deception analysis; the test is solely whether the communication or omission misleads or deceives the client.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Information Valence Non-Determinative Deception Standard Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to apply the same deception standard to the pending ethics complaint — which reflected negatively on Engineer A — as would apply to positive misrepresentations; the fact that disclosure would be damaging rather than self-enhancing did not alter the ethical analysis of whether non-disclosure constituted a misleading act.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, II.4.a, II.5.a, III.3.a; BER Case No. 97-11
sourcetext: The Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's active engagement with Client B while the complaint was pending
textreferences: The Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
textreferences: The issue of greatest importance in each of these cases appears not to be whether a client would be pleased or disappointed with the information, but whether the information communicated (or in the present case not communicated) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client.
textreferences: the present case involves a situation that could reflect negatively on Engineer A and his firm. However, the Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Informed Decision-Making Enablement Invoked by Client B's Right to Know
type: InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Manufacturing Facility Design Client
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Client B was deprived of material information — the pending competence complaint — that would have enabled Client B to make an informed decision about whether to continue retaining Engineer A for the manufacturing facility project.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client B's ability to exercise informed judgment about the engineering engagement was materially compromised by Engineer A's non-disclosure; the principle requires that clients possess all information material to their retention decisions.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
sourcetext: Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
tensionresolution: The materiality of the complaint — alleging incompetence for services identical to those being rendered — makes it information Client B was entitled to possess for informed decision-making.
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.831011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Marketing Material Accuracy — Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Use
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B continued to distribute promotional brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after receiving termination notice, creating a false impression of firm personnel to prospective clients
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B (Firm Principal)
constraintclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to promptly update all firm brochures and marketing materials to remove Engineer A's listing as a key employee upon receiving notice of Engineer A's termination, prohibiting the continued distribution of materials that inaccurately represented the firm's current personnel.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; BER Case 83-1; BER Case 90-4
sourcetext: Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Distribution (Case 83-1)
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B received notice of Engineer A's departure through all subsequent marketing material distributions
textreferences: Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Distribution (Case 83-1)
textreferences: Engineer B's continued use of promotional brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.834366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation Invoked by Engineer B Brochure Distribution
type: MarketingMaterialQualificationAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm brochures listing Engineer A as key employee
appliedto: Prospective Clients Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's distribution of firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee — both during the notice period and after actual termination — misrepresented the firm's personnel qualifications to prospective clients who relied on those brochures to assess firm capabilities.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Continued distribution of brochures listing a departed or departing engineer as a key employee constitutes a material misrepresentation of firm personnel qualifications, violating the obligation to ensure marketing materials accurately reflect current staffing.
invokedby: Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
principleclass: Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination, constituting misrepresentation of firm personnel qualifications.
tensionresolution: The firm's obligation to maintain accurate marketing materials is not excused by the operational inconvenience of updating brochures; prospective clients' reliance interests require timely correction.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination
textreferences: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures identifying Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.831164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
textreferences: Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
usedby: Engineer A, Client B, State Board of Professional Engineers
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding disclosure of the pending ethics complaint to Client B and the underlying competence allegation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.825199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Sections II.3.a, II.4.a, II.5.a, III.3.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The obligation of the engineer to be honest and truthful and to avoid acts that might be viewed as misleading and deceptive is clearly stated in various sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics (See NSPE Code Sections II.3.a., II.4.a, II.5.a. and III.3.a.)
textreferences: Interpreting the meaning of NSPE Code Section II.5.a, we noted that the words 'pertinent facts' are those facts that have a clear and decisive relevance to a matter at hand.
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to be honest and truthful and to avoid acts that might be viewed as misleading and deceptive is clearly stated in various sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics (See NSPE Code Sections II.3.a., II.4.a, II.5.a. and III.3.a.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Primary normative authority establishing obligations of honesty, truthfulness, faithful agency, non-misrepresentation of qualifications, and avoidance of deceptive statements in professional practice
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.826673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure Engineer A Client B Case 97-11
type: Non-CompelledPendingAllegationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was subject to a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging incompetence in services similar to those being rendered to Client B; the Board held that automatic disclosure was not ethically compelled.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not automatically compelled to disclose to Client B the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, because the complaint constituted a mere allegation — not a finding of fact or conclusion of law — and no engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations that could be false, baseless, or maliciously motivated.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, II.4.a, II.5.a, III.3.a; BER Case No. 97-11
sourcetext: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of the pending, unadjudicated ethics complaint while Engineer A was serving Client B
textreferences: A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
textreferences: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.820168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure — Engineer A to Client B
type: Non-CompelledPendingAllegationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was serving Client B on design and CPM scheduling for a manufacturing facility when Client C filed a competence complaint with the state board regarding similar services; Engineer A chose not to disclose the complaint to Client B
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not automatically compelled to disclose the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C to Client B, because the complaint constituted an unproven allegation rather than an adjudicated finding, and no engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations that could be false or maliciously motivated — but Engineer A was required to weigh all relevant factors and consider whether prudential disclosure was warranted given the nature and seriousness of the charges.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.4.a, II.5.a
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A was contacted by the state board regarding the complaint through the completion of services to Client B
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
textreferences: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.833301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Permissibility Engineer Z Case 90-4
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures listing Engineer X as an employee after Engineer X gave two weeks notice; the Board found this not unethical because Engineer X was not a highlighted key employee and hydrology was not a significant portion of firm work.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Z
constraintclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z was not constrained from continuing to list Engineer X in firm brochures after Engineer X gave two weeks notice, because Engineer X was not highlighted as a 'key employee' and hydrology did not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work — meaning the listing did not constitute a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact sufficient to trigger the prohibition.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 90-4
sourcetext: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
temporalscope: During the two-week notice period after Engineer X gave notice of departure
textreferences: After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
textreferences: In Case No. 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall makeup of the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Notice-Period Brochure Appraisal Constraint Engineer B Case 83-1
type: Notice-PeriodBrochurePersonnelProspectiveClientAppraisalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed previously printed brochures during the notice period; the Board held this was permissible only if Engineer B contemporaneously apprised prospective clients of the pending termination during negotiation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Notice-Period Brochure Personnel Prospective Client Appraisal Constraint
constraintstatement: During the period after Engineer A received termination notice but before actual departure, Engineer B was constrained to apprise each prospective client during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination whenever distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 83-1
sourcetext: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
temporalscope: During the notice period between termination notice and actual departure of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination. The Board noted that this could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
textreferences: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Pending Competence Allegation Similar-Services Disclosure Heightening — Engineer A
type: PendingCompetenceAllegationSimilar-ServicesDisclosureHeighteningConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client C's complaint alleged incompetence in services similar to those Engineer A was performing for Client B on the manufacturing facility project
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Pending Competence Allegation Similar-Services Disclosure Heightening Constraint
constraintstatement: The fact that Client C's competence allegation directly concerned services substantially similar to those being rendered to Client B heightened the prudential case for disclosure to Client B, because the allegation bore directly on Engineer A's fitness to perform the very work at hand — distinguishing this scenario from a complaint about unrelated services and raising the materiality threshold for the disclosure decision.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.4.a
sourcetext: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
temporalscope: From receipt of state board contact through completion of services to Client B
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
textreferences: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.833901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation Invoked in Engineer A Case
type: PendingCompetenceComplaintDisclosureObligationtoCurrentClient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: CPM scheduling and design services for manufacturing facility
appliedto: Client B Manufacturing Facility Design Client
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to disclose to Client B the existence of a pending ethics complaint alleging incompetence for services materially similar to those being actively rendered to Client B — because the complaint directly bears on Client B's ability to make an informed decision about continued retention.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The similarity between the services for which incompetence was alleged (Client C's project) and those currently being rendered (Client B's manufacturing facility design and CPM scheduling) elevates the materiality of the complaint to Client B's decision-making, triggering an affirmative disclosure obligation beyond what the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction alone would require.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Current Client
sourcetext: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.
tensionresolution: The service-similarity factor tips the balance toward disclosure: when the alleged incompetence concerns the same professional domain as current services, the client's right to informed decision-making outweighs the engineer's interest in non-disclosure of unproven allegations.
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
textreferences: Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.830716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation Negated by Allegation Status
type: PendingCompetenceComplaintDisclosureObligationtoCurrentClient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging lack of competence for services similar to those being rendered to Client B
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board holds that Engineer A does not have an automatic ethical obligation to disclose the pending ethics complaint to Client B, because the complaint is a mere allegation — not a finding of fact or conclusion of law — and the disclosure obligation that would arise from a demonstrated professional competence deficiency is not triggered by an unproven allegation of such deficiency.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle extracted in prior sections — that a pending competence complaint bearing on current services creates a disclosure obligation — is qualified by the allegation-adjudication distinction: the obligation is not absolute but must be weighed against the unproven character of the complaint and the potential for false or malicious allegations.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Current Client
sourcetext: Such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
tensionresolution: The Board resolves the tension by holding that the disclosure obligation is not automatic but requires the engineer to weigh all factors — the nature and seriousness of the charges — and take prudent action, which may include providing limited background information.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
textreferences: The Board is of the opinion that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.816193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Pending Ethics Complaint Against Engineer A by Client C
type: PendingEthicsComplaintNon-DisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the state board's contact with Engineer A through Client B's independent discovery of the complaint
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Client C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State Board of Professional Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
stateclass: Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A's status as subject of a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C with the state board, while actively serving Client B on a similar project
terminatedby: Client B's independent discovery of the complaint through another party
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
textreferences: The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
triggeringevent: State board of professional engineers contacting Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed by Client C
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.824361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure Case 83-1
type: PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm brochure listing Engineer A as key employee distributed after Engineer A's actual termination
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applies the two-part test to Case 83-1: (1) Engineer A's name as 'key employee' constitutes a pertinent fact because client selection decisions are materially influenced by named personnel availability, and (2) Engineer B acted with intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications by knowingly distributing the brochure after terminating Engineer A — both elements satisfied, violation found.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The 'key employee' designation amplifies the pertinence of the personnel listing — clients specifically rely on named key personnel availability in selection decisions — and the firm principal's direct knowledge of the termination establishes the intent element beyond reasonable doubt.
invokedby: Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal
principleclass: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
sourcetext: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications, and, as such, constituted a violation of the NSPE Code.
tensionresolution: No competing principle mitigates the violation in the post-termination distribution scenario — the dual-element test is fully satisfied and no corrective disclosure was made.
textreferences: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A, as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications, and, as such, constituted a violation of the NSPE Code.
textreferences: The facts presented in the case demonstrated that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
textreferences: We concluded that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.815140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Engineer B Brochure Case 83-1
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination, satisfying both elements of the misrepresentation test.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination because both elements of the dual-element test were satisfied: (1) Engineer A's name constituted a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients, and (2) Engineer B acted with intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications by including that name.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 83-1
sourcetext: We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a to exist.
temporalscope: From the point of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications, and, as such, constituted a violation of the NSPE Code.
textreferences: We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a to exist.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Prohibition Engineer B Case 83-1
type: Post-DepartureKeyEmployeeBrochureDistributionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B continued to distribute previously printed brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee well after Engineer A's actual termination, constituting a clear violation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination and departure from the firm.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, II.4.a, II.5.a, III.3.a; BER Case No. 83-1
sourcetext: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm. The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.819520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Prepare Plans and CPM Schedule
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.822736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Engineer A Pending Complaint Case 97-11
type: PrivacyRightMaterialOmissionBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced the tension between the right not to disclose a potentially false and damaging allegation and the duty to avoid material omissions that could affect Client B's ability to make informed decisions about the engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's right not to disclose the potentially damaging and unproven ethics complaint was bounded by the prohibition against material omissions — requiring Engineer A to assess whether non-disclosure crossed from legitimately private into materially misleading territory given the similarity of the complaint's subject matter to services being rendered to Client B.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, II.4.a, II.5.a; BER Case No. 97-11
sourcetext: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of active engagement with Client B while the complaint was pending
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
textreferences: The issue of greatest importance in each of these cases appears not to be whether a client would be pleased or disappointed with the information, but whether the information communicated (or in the present case not communicated) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.820725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Boundary — Engineer A Competence Allegation
type: PrivacyRightMaterialOmissionBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced tension between the right not to disclose an unproven allegation and the duty to avoid material omissions affecting Client B's ability to evaluate the professional relationship
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's right not to disclose the potentially damaging and unproven competence allegation was bounded by the prohibition against omitting material facts in professional representations to Client B — requiring Engineer A to assess whether the pending complaint, given its similarity to the services being rendered, crossed the threshold from legitimately private to materially outcome-determinative information that Client B would need to make an informed decision about the engagement.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.5.a; BER Case 97-11
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
temporalscope: From receipt of state board contact through completion of services to Client B
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.833594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension in Engineer A's Complaint Disclosure
type: PrivacyRightvs.MaterialOmissionTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the filing of the complaint through Engineer A's decision about disclosure to Client B
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:34.753598+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent
stateclass: Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
subject: Engineer A's tension between the right not to disclose a potentially false and damaging allegation versus the duty to be truthful and avoid material omissions with Client B
terminatedby: Engineer A's decision to disclose or not disclose, or resolution of the complaint
textreferences: Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice -- allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent
textreferences: such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board
triggeringevent: Ethics complaint filed by Client C creating a potential disclosure obligation to Client B
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.828124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Privacy Right vs. Material Omission — Competence Allegation
type: PrivacyRightvs.MaterialOmissionTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's receipt of the board's contact through Client B's discovery
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:06.224076+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
stateclass: Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
subject: Engineer A's tension between the right not to disclose an unproven allegation and the duty to avoid material omissions that could affect Client B's informed decision-making
terminatedby: Client B's independent discovery of the complaint
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
triggeringevent: Engineer A's conscious decision not to disclose the pending complaint to Client B
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.824900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Professional Competence Invoked by Client C Complaint Against Engineer A
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
appliedto: Services similar to those being performed for Client B
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Client C's ethics complaint alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question places the Professional Competence principle at the center of the case, as the complaint's existence and similarity to current services is what triggers Engineer A's disclosure obligation to Client B.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Professional Competence principle underlies both the complaint itself and the disclosure obligation: if Engineer A's competence is genuinely in question for a category of services, current clients receiving those services have a legitimate interest in that information.
invokedby: Client C Prior Client Ethics Complainant
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
tensionresolution: The competence principle reinforces the disclosure obligation to Client B: the allegation is not merely a personal grievance but a professional competence concern directly relevant to ongoing services.
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.831836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Professional_Competence_Standard
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
textreferences: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
usedby: Client C in filing the ethics complaint; State Board in investigating Engineer A
usedincontext: Governs the allegation by Client C that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform services similar to those being rendered to Client B, forming the substantive basis of the ethics complaint
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.825464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Prospective Clients Relying on Firm Brochure
type: Brochure-RelyingEngineeringServicesConsumer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'harm_type': 'Misrepresentation of available personnel and firm expertise', 'reliance_basis': 'Firm promotional brochures and resumes'}
caseinvolvement: Prospective clients who read and relied upon engineering firm brochures listing personnel qualifications, reasonably assuming that named individuals (especially 'key employees') were currently available to the firm, and who were potentially misled by continued listing of departed engineers.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:35:42.201782+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Case 90-4'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer
sourcetext: The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure
textreferences: The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure
textreferences: the names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm
textreferences: this could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.830211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Prudential Background Information Provision Engineer A Client B Case 97-11
type: PrudentialBackgroundInformationProvisionPendingComplaintConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board held that while disclosure was not compelled, Engineer A should have weighed providing limited background information to Client B for the benefit of all concerned, enabling Client B to respond to third-party inquiries.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Prudential Background Information Provision Pending Complaint Constraint
constraintstatement: Although not ethically compelled to fully disclose the pending complaint, Engineer A was constrained to actively weigh the prudential case for providing Client B with limited, dispassionate, non-prejudicial background information about the pending matter — particularly to enable Client B to respond to third-party inquiries and to demonstrate Engineer A's professional transparency.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:49:34.206535+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, II.4.a; BER Case No. 97-11
sourcetext: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of active engagement with Client B while the complaint was pending
textreferences: By doing so, Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B will be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties and would be demonstrating to Client B that Engineer A is acting in a professional and responsible manner and has nothing to hide or fear concerning the complaint.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
textreferences: the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.820528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Prudential Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A Relational Damage
type: PrudentialDisclosureasRelationalSelf-Protection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's confidence in Engineer A's transparency
appliedto: Engineer A–Client B professional relationship
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to proactively disclose the pending complaint to Client B resulted in Client B learning of it through a third party, damaging the trust relationship — an outcome that voluntary disclosure would have mitigated or avoided.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:37:51.889344+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even if not strictly required by the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction, prudential self-interest in maintaining the client relationship counseled disclosure; Engineer A's non-disclosure left Engineer A in a weaker relational position when Client B independently learned of the complaint.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
sourcetext: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
tensionresolution: Prudential disclosure would have served both relational and ethical interests; the principle reinforces that voluntary disclosure, even of unproven allegations, is advisable when the allegation concerns the very competence being relied upon by the current client.
textreferences: Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.830513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Prudential Disclosure Recommendation to Engineer A Regarding Client B
type: PrudentialDisclosureasRelationalSelf-Protection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision about whether to voluntarily inform Client B of the pending ethics complaint
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board recommends — without imposing an ethical obligation — that Engineer A consider providing Client B with limited background information about the pending complaint in a dispassionate and non-prejudicial manner, because doing so would give Client B early notice to respond to third-party questions and would demonstrate that Engineer A is acting professionally and has nothing to hide.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Prudential disclosure serves the engineer's relational interest by preempting the reputational damage that would result if Client B learned of the complaint from a third party — the engineer who discloses proactively demonstrates transparency and professional confidence, while the engineer who withholds and is later exposed faces a materially weaker relational position.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
sourcetext: The Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned.
tensionresolution: The Board carefully distinguishes between ethical obligation (not triggered) and prudential advisability (recommended) — prudential disclosure is framed as a matter of professional wisdom and relational strategy rather than ethical compulsion.
textreferences: By doing so, Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B will be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties and would be demonstrating to Client B that Engineer A is acting in a professional and responsible manner and has nothing to hide or fear concerning the complaint.
textreferences: On this last point, while the Board is not suggesting that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against him by Client C, the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.814969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Prudential Disclosure Relational Risk — Engineer A Non-Disclosure to Client B
type: PrudentialPre-EmploymentDisclosureRelationalRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A chose not to disclose the pending complaint; Client B subsequently discovered it through a third party and expressed upset that Engineer A had not disclosed it directly
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: Although Engineer A was not ethically compelled to disclose the pending complaint to Client B, the choice not to disclose created a foreseeable relational vulnerability — specifically, that if Client B later discovered the complaint through a third party, Engineer A would be in a significantly weaker professional position than if disclosure had been made proactively with appropriate context, constraining Engineer A to weigh the downstream relational consequences of non-disclosure.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.a
sourcetext: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
temporalscope: At the time of the non-disclosure decision and throughout the period the complaint remained undisclosed to Client B
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.834208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Qualification Representation Standard - Firm Brochure Context
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code Section II.5.a)
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Qualification Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:34:54.509435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: These include the obligations to be truthful in public statements, act as a faithful agent and trustee in dealings with clients, not falsify or misrepresent their professional qualifications, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact.
textreferences: The Board has reviewed a number of factual situations over the years relating to the question of misleading clients through the misrepresentation of professional qualifications.
textreferences: These include the obligations to be truthful in public statements, act as a faithful agent and trustee in dealings with clients, not falsify or misrepresent their professional qualifications, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact.
textreferences: the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing both BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4 and the present case
usedincontext: Standard governing honest representation of firm qualifications and personnel in promotional brochures; applied to determine whether continued listing of a departed or departing engineer constitutes a misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.827278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.439107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.009992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_30
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_31
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_32
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_33
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_34
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it unethical for Engineer A to not report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the fact that Client C's competence allegation concerns services similar in nature to those Engineer A is currently performing for Client B elevate the materiality of the pending complaint to a level that should have triggered a disclosure obligation, even if the complaint remains unresolved?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Given that Client B learned of the complaint through a third party and expressed that Engineer A should have disclosed it, does the relational damage caused by non-disclosure itself constitute an ethical harm independent of whether disclosure was technically required?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.435216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what point, if any, does a pending ethics complaint transition from a private professional matter into information that a current client has a legitimate interest in knowing, and who bears the burden of making that determination — the engineer, the client, or the licensing board?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should Engineer A have independently assessed whether the competence concerns raised by Client C were substantively valid, and if so, whether that self-assessment should have influenced the decision to continue performing similar services for Client B without any disclosure?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation — which requires Engineer A to act in Client B's best interest and enable informed decision-making — conflict with the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction, which holds that an unresolved complaint does not constitute established fact and therefore need not be disclosed?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Honesty and Non-Deception Obligation conflict with the Privacy Right versus Material Omission boundary when Engineer A's silence about a pending competence complaint — in a context where similar services are being rendered — could reasonably be interpreted by Client B as an implicit representation that no relevant professional concerns exist?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.434481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Prudential Disclosure Recommendation to Engineer A — which suggests voluntary disclosure would have been wise — conflict with the Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation Negated by Allegation Status, and if so, does the Board's framing of disclosure as merely prudent rather than obligatory undermine the strength of the Faithful Agent Obligation in contexts where client trust is materially at stake?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.437951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Valence-Neutral Standard — which holds that omissions of negative information can be as deceptive as omissions of positive information — conflict with the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction when applied to Engineer A's non-disclosure, given that the Board used the valence-neutral standard to find deception in the brochure cases but declined to apply equivalent scrutiny to Engineer A's silence about a pending competence complaint?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty as a faithful agent to Client B by withholding information about a pending competence complaint involving services nearly identical to those being performed for Client B, regardless of whether the complaint had been adjudicated?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision not to disclose the pending ethics complaint produce better overall outcomes for the professional relationship with Client B, given that Client B ultimately discovered the complaint through a third party and expressed that trust had been undermined?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and honesty expected of a licensed engineer by choosing silence over voluntary disclosure when a competence allegation directly paralleled the scope of active services being rendered to Client B?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the allegation-adjudication distinction — the principle that an unproven complaint does not carry the same moral weight as a finding of misconduct — adequately discharge Engineer A's duty of non-deception toward Client B under the NSPE Code, or does the similar-services context create a heightened disclosure duty that the distinction cannot override?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Client B's trust in Engineer A have been preserved, and would the professional relationship have remained intact, if Engineer A had proactively disclosed the pending ethics complaint at the time it was received from the state licensing board rather than allowing Client B to discover it through a third party?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if the ethics complaint filed by Client C had involved services in a completely different engineering domain from those being performed for Client B — would the Board's conclusion that non-disclosure was ethical have been more clearly justified, and does the similar-services context in the actual case represent a meaningful ethical distinction that the Board underweighted?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: What if Engineer A had disclosed the pending complaint to Client B but framed it with full context — explaining that it was an unproven allegation, describing the nature of the services involved, and affirming confidence in their own competence — would such a disclosure have satisfied both the faithful agent obligation and the allegation-adjudication distinction simultaneously, thereby representing a superior ethical path to either pure silence or unqualified disclosure?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if the state licensing board had found Engineer A guilty of the competence violation alleged by Client C before Engineer A completed the project for Client B — would Engineer A have then been obligated to disclose the adjudicated finding to Client B, and does this hypothetical reveal that the Board's ethical conclusion in the actual case rests entirely on the unresolved procedural status of the complaint rather than on any substantive assessment of Engineer A's actual competence?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.438579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_30
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_31
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_32
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.011475
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_33
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_34
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_35
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_36
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_37
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_38
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_39
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:13:08.010899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T08:05:02.436443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

State_Licensing_Board_Rules_of_Professional_Conduct
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State Board of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Board of Professional Engineers Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:33:49.656885+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
textreferences: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
usedby: State Board of Professional Engineers in contacting Engineer A regarding the complaint
usedincontext: The state board of professional engineers is the regulatory body that received and is investigating the ethics complaint filed by Client C against Engineer A, establishing the formal regulatory framework within which the complaint is adjudicated
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.825616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Third-Party Discovery Trust Retroactive Undermining — Client B Discovery of Complaint
type: Third-PartyDiscoveryTrustRetroactiveUnderminingNon-ExculpationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B learned of the pending ethics complaint through another party rather than from Engineer A, causing Client B to express that Engineer A should have disclosed the matter directly
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Third-Party Discovery Trust Retroactive Undermining Non-Exculpation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's decision not to disclose the pending complaint to Client B was not exculpated by the eventual third-party discovery of the complaint by Client B — the third-party discovery retroactively undermined the trust foundation of the professional relationship, a foreseeable consequence that Engineer A was constrained to weigh when making the initial non-disclosure decision.
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:41:04.928343+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.4.a; BER Case 97-11
sourcetext: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
temporalscope: From the moment of non-disclosure decision through Client B's third-party discovery of the complaint
textreferences: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
textreferences: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.834046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

Valence-Neutral Standard Applied to Distinguish Present Case from Brochure Cases
type: Valence-NeutralMisleadingInformationStandardinProfessionalDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-disclosure of pending ethics complaint to Client B
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board explicitly holds that the fact that the pending complaint would reflect negatively on Engineer A — unlike the positive credential inflation in Cases 83-1 and 90-4 — does not change the analytical framework; the ethical question is whether the non-communication of the complaint misleads or deceives Client B, not whether Client B would be pleased or disappointed by the information.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 147
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 147
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T07:44:46.199444+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The valence-neutral standard prevents engineers from using the self-protective character of non-disclosure as a categorical defense — the same misleading-communication analysis applies whether the withheld information would enhance or diminish the engineer's standing in the client's eyes.
invokedby: Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
principleclass: Valence-Neutral Misleading Information Standard in Professional Disclosure
sourcetext: The issue of greatest importance in each of these cases appears not to be whether a client would be pleased or disappointed with the information, but whether the information communicated (or in the present case not communicated) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client.
tensionresolution: The Board applies the valence-neutral standard but ultimately finds that the allegation-adjudication distinction provides the operative reason why non-disclosure does not constitute misleading conduct in this case — not the negative valence of the information.
textreferences: However, the Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
textreferences: In contrast, the present case involves a situation that could reflect negatively on Engineer A and his firm.
textreferences: The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4 , because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had.
textreferences: The issue of greatest importance in each of these cases appears not to be whether a client would be pleased or disappointed with the information, but whether the information communicated (or in the present case not communicated) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client.
wasattributedto: Case 147 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.815839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

brochure distribution during Engineer A's employment but after notice (Case 83-1) before brochure distribution after Engineer A's actual termination (Case 83-1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

ethics complaint filed by Client C during Engineer A rendering services to Client B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

services provided for Client C (prior project) before ethics complaint filed by Client C with state board
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

services provided for Client C (prior project) before services being performed for Client B (current project)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction

termination notice issued to Engineer A (Case 83-1) before actual termination of Engineer A (Case 83-1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T07:56:55.823638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 147 Extraction