ProEthica Case 151 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.454737
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER_Case_62-14
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 62-14
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In Case No. 62-14, dealing with the disbarment of an engineer by the United States Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business in violation of the rules of the Patent Office, we held that the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics
textreferences: In Case No. 62-14, dealing with the disbarment of an engineer by the United States Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business in violation of the rules of the Patent Office, we held that the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics
textreferences: We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as prior precedent holding that an engineer disbarred by the US Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business violated the Canons of Ethics (now §3), while explicitly reserving the question of personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice
version: 1962
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.458771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER_Case_68-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 68-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in Case No. 68-7, we similarly considered a case in which an engineer was discharged by his employer for intoxication while in the performance of his duties
textreferences: We do not deal in this case with the question of whether personal misconduct separate and apart from the performance of professional services would be a violation of the code.
textreferences: in Case No. 68-7, we similarly considered a case in which an engineer was discharged by his employer for intoxication while in the performance of his duties
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as prior precedent addressing an engineer discharged for intoxication while performing duties, again reserving the question of whether personal misconduct separate from professional services violates the code
version: 1968
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.458909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER Case 72-6 Code Expansive Public Confidence Purpose Interpretive Constraint
type: PublicConfidenceEngineeringProfessionCodeExpansiveIntegrityPurposeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 72-6 rejecting the narrow interpretation that Code integrity provisions apply only to professional service conduct, and establishing that the Code's foundational public-confidence purpose requires expansive interpretation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review and all Code interpreters
constraintclass: Public Confidence Engineering Profession Code Expansive Integrity Purpose Constraint
constraintstatement: The NSPE BER was constrained to interpret the Code's integrity, honor, and dignity provisions in light of their foundational purpose of ensuring public confidence in the profession, prohibiting narrow interpretations that would allow personal conduct bound to bring disrepute to the profession to escape ethical review.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Preamble, §1, §3; BER Case 72-6
sourcetext: But counter to this approach should be a recognition that the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior.
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable to all Code interpretation exercises
textreferences: But counter to this approach should be a recognition that the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior.
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession for the acts of a few without any attempt to impose whatever corrective action is possible so that the public may know that the profession recognizes its obligations to justify public confidence in the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.472618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER Case 72-6 Code Section 3 Honor Dignity Personal Conduct Scope Constraint
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 72-6 definitively establishing that Code §3's prohibition on conduct likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the profession extends to personal criminal misconduct, not merely to professional service conduct
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: All licensed professional engineers subject to NSPE Code
constraintclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Constraint
constraintstatement: All licensed professional engineers are constrained by Code §3 — requiring avoidance of all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession — in their personal conduct, not merely in their professional service activities, as definitively established in BER Case 72-6.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §3; BER Case 72-6
sourcetext: Section 3—'The Engineer will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession.'
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable throughout the engineer's professional career
textreferences: Section 3—'The Engineer will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession.'
textreferences: Thus it is that the NSPE Code of Ethics embraces language similar to that found in the codes of other professions to the effect stated in §3.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER Case 72-6 Personal Misconduct Code Jurisdiction Non-Exclusion Resolution
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 72-6 involving Engineer A (theft conviction, probationary fraud) and Engineer B (tax fraud conviction with public professional identification), requiring definitive resolution of the previously twice-reserved question of personal misconduct Code jurisdiction
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Constraint
constraintstatement: The NSPE BER was constrained to reject the narrow interpretation that the Code of Ethics applies only to conduct prejudicing professional service performance, and was required to definitively resolve — after reserving the question in Cases 62-14 and 68-7 — that personal misconduct of the kind shown by Engineer A and Engineer B is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §1, §3, Preamble; BER Cases 62-14, 68-7, 72-6
sourcetext: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
temporalscope: Definitive resolution in BER Case 72-6, binding on all future cases
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.472195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER Case 72-6 Previously Reserved Jurisdiction Question Non-Reopening Constraint
type: PreviouslyReservedEthicsJurisdictionQuestionDefinitiveResolutionNon-ReopeningConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 72-6 definitively resolving the personal misconduct jurisdiction question after it was explicitly reserved in two prior cases, establishing binding precedent that cannot be reopened by reference to the prior reservations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review and future ethics adjudicators
constraintclass: Previously Reserved Ethics Jurisdiction Question Definitive Resolution Non-Reopening Constraint
constraintstatement: Having definitively resolved in BER Case 72-6 the question of personal misconduct Code jurisdiction that was reserved in Cases 62-14 and 68-7, the BER and future ethics adjudicators are constrained from treating that question as still open — the definitive resolution is binding precedent and the prior reservations of judgment cannot be invoked to resist its application.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Cases 62-14, 68-7, 72-6; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
temporalscope: From BER Case 72-6 forward; binding on all future cases presenting the same jurisdictional question
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Legal Adjudication Predicate Discipline Constraint
type: ProfessionalSocietyPersonalMisconductDisciplineLegalAdjudicationPredicateConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 72-6 establishing the conditions under which professional societies may exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over personal misconduct, grounded in Engineer A's guilty plea to theft and Engineer B's conviction for tax fraud
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: NSPE and professional engineering societies generally
constraintclass: Professional Society Personal Misconduct Discipline Legal Adjudication Predicate Constraint
constraintstatement: Professional engineering societies exercising disciplinary authority over personal misconduct are constrained to ground such discipline in a prior determination by proper legal authority that the conduct is beyond the pale of socially sanctioned behavior — they may take note of official legal findings and act accordingly, but may not independently adjudicate the moral character of purely personal conduct without such a predicate.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 72-6 Discussion
sourcetext: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable to all professional society disciplinary proceedings involving personal misconduct
textreferences: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.472338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Personal Conduct Overreach Prohibition
type: ProfessionalSocietyPersonalConductOverreachProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 72-6 articulating the limiting principle on professional society disciplinary jurisdiction over personal conduct, establishing that the jurisdiction is bounded by the legal adjudication threshold
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: NSPE and professional engineering societies generally
constraintclass: Professional Society Personal Conduct Overreach Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Professional engineering societies are constrained from undertaking to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct of individual members — the disciplinary jurisdiction over personal conduct is bounded by the legal adjudication threshold and does not extend to personal lifestyle choices or private behaviors that have not been officially determined to be beyond socially sanctioned behavior.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 72-6 Discussion
sourcetext: Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable to all professional society disciplinary proceedings
textreferences: Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.472478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER Case 72-6 State Registration Law Felony Moral Turpitude Parallel Discipline Constraint
type: StateRegistrationLawFelonyMoralTurpitudeDisciplineAuthorityParallelEthicsConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 72-6 invoking state registration law's broad felony/moral turpitude discipline authority as parallel confirmation of professional society ethics jurisdiction over Engineer A's theft/fraud and Engineer B's tax fraud
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: NSPE and professional engineering societies
constraintclass: State Registration Law Felony Moral Turpitude Discipline Authority Parallel Ethics Constraint
constraintstatement: The NSPE BER was constrained to recognize that state engineering registration laws — which authorize discipline for any felony or crime involving moral turpitude beyond engineering practice transgressions — provide parallel confirmation that professional ethics jurisdiction over personal criminal misconduct is appropriate, prohibiting the argument that professional ethics codes are more narrowly scoped than state registration law in their treatment of personal criminal conduct.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State engineering registration laws; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 72-6
sourcetext: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable to all professional discipline proceedings involving personal criminal misconduct
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: This broad authority, including suspension or revocation of license, is intended to go beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering because another part of the state board authority provides for reprimand, suspension or revocation of license for 'misconduct in the practice of his profession.'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.472759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

BER_Case_Precedent_Personal_Misconduct
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case — Personal Criminal Misconduct by Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:04:42.067528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:04:42.067528+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Example 1—Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Example 1—Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Example 2—Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Provides precedential ethical reasoning on whether personal criminal conduct (theft, fraud, tax evasion) by licensed engineers constitutes a violation of professional ethics codes, establishing analogical patterns for future similar cases
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.455593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Case 151 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 7
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Case No. 62-14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.791762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Case No. 62-14 decision before Case No. 68-7 decision
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Later, in Case No. 68-7, we similarly considered a case... But again we noted...
from entity text: Case No. 62-14 decision
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Case No. 68-7 decision
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Case No 68-7 decision
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Case No. 68-7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.791812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Case No. 68-7 decision before current case decision
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
from entity text: Case No. 68-7 decision
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current case decision
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current case decision
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Commits Probation F
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Commits Theft
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Files Fraudulent Re
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

CausalLink_NSPE Reserves Judgment 1962
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

CausalLink_NSPE Reserves Judgment 1968
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

CausalLink_NSPE Rules Personal Misconduct
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Personal misconduct of the types described is a violation of the Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that personal misconduct violates the Code, Engineer A's case presents a compounded and aggravated ethical breach that the Board's single conclusion does not fully capture. Engineer A did not merely commit a single act of personal dishonesty; he committed theft, accepted a sentence that included supervised probation as a condition of continued liberty, and then—while actively employed as an engineer and under that legal supervision—engaged in fraudulent check writing. This pattern reveals not an isolated lapse in character but a settled disposition of dishonesty that persisted across time, legal consequence, and professional context. The Board's ruling, while correct, understates the moral gravity of the aggravated sequence: each subsequent act of fraud during probation constituted a deliberate exploitation of the trust extended by both the legal system and his engineering employer. A more complete analysis would recognize that the ethical violation is not simply the sum of two criminal acts but is qualitatively worse because the second offense occurred precisely when Engineer A had the strongest institutional and moral incentive to demonstrate reformed character. The Board should have explicitly addressed whether this pattern of repeated dishonest conduct during professional employment warrants a more severe or categorically distinct disciplinary response than a single, isolated conviction.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that personal misconduct violates the Code leaves unresolved a critical threshold question: at what level of personal wrongdoing does Code jurisdiction attach? The Board's reasoning in Case 72-6 relies on the expansive interpretation canon and the public confidence foundational purpose of the Code, but it does not articulate a principled, administrable standard distinguishing minor personal failings from Code-triggering misconduct. Both Engineer A and Engineer B committed offenses involving deliberate dishonesty—theft, fraudulent checks, and fraudulent tax returns—which are paradigmatically incompatible with the honesty and integrity the Code demands as core professional virtues. However, the Board's reasoning, if extended without qualification, could theoretically sweep in minor traffic infractions, civil disputes, or misdemeanor conduct bearing no meaningful relationship to professional character. A more complete analysis would establish that the operative threshold is not merely criminal conviction per se, but criminal conviction for offenses whose essential element is dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude—a standard already recognized in analogous state engineering registration laws. This dishonesty-nexus criterion would provide a coherent limiting principle that honors both the expansive public-confidence purpose of the Code and the professional society disciplinary scope limitation cautioning against overreach into purely personal conduct. Without such a limiting principle, the Board's ruling risks creating an ambiguous zone of ungoverned minor personal wrongdoing on one end and unjustified overreach on the other.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's treatment of Engineer B raises a distinct and underexamined analytical problem: the Board's reasoning appears to blend two independently sufficient but conceptually separate grounds for finding an ethics violation—the intrinsic character deficiency revealed by a dishonesty-based conviction, and the extrinsic reputational harm to the profession caused by the public identification of Engineer B as an engineer in newspaper accounts. These are not equivalent grounds and should not be conflated. The intrinsic character ground holds that any engineer convicted of a fraud-based offense violates the Code regardless of public exposure, because the Code's honesty and integrity provisions speak to the engineer's actual character, not merely to public perception. The extrinsic reputational ground holds that public identification of an engineer's criminal conduct creates a distinct harm to the profession's image that independently triggers Code obligations. If the Board's ruling rests primarily or exclusively on the reputational harm ground, it produces an arbitrary and troubling outcome: an engineer whose identical tax fraud conviction received no media coverage would escape Code jurisdiction, while Engineer B faces discipline largely because a reporter noted his profession. A principled and complete analysis must establish that the underlying conviction for a dishonesty-based offense is itself sufficient to trigger Code jurisdiction, with public professional identification serving only as an aggravating circumstance that heightens—but does not create—the ethical violation. Failure to make this distinction leaves the profession's ethical standards hostage to the contingency of media coverage rather than grounded in the intrinsic demands of professional character.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision3: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's failure to disclose his criminal conviction and probationary status to his new employer before accepting engineering employment constitutes a separate and independent ethics violation beyond the underlying criminal conduct itself. The NSPE Code's foundational commitment to honesty and integrity is not satisfied merely by refraining from further crime; it affirmatively demands transparency in professional dealings. Accepting employment while concealing adjudicated wrongdoing that directly bears on one's trustworthiness and legal standing is itself a deceptive act. The concealment exploits the employer's reasonable assumption that a new hire is free from serious legal encumbrances, and it deprives the employer of information material to the employment decision. Accordingly, even if Engineer A had not subsequently committed check fraud during probation, the silent acceptance of engineering employment while under supervised probation for theft would independently implicate the Code's honesty provisions. The subsequent fraudulent check writing then compounds this initial violation, transforming what might have been a single disclosure failure into a sustained pattern of deceptive professional conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The public identification of Engineer B as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction is properly understood as an aggravating circumstance that heightens the profession's reputational injury, but it is not a necessary predicate for Code jurisdiction. The underlying conviction for filing fraudulent tax returns is independently sufficient to trigger the NSPE Code's reach under the whole-person integrity standard articulated in Case 72-6. The Board's reasoning grounded in honesty as a core professional virtue does not depend on whether the public happened to learn of the engineer's professional identity; the character deficiency revealed by deliberate fraud is equally present whether or not a newspaper reported it. However, the public identification does create a distinct and additional harm: it concretely links the profession's reputation to the dishonest act in the minds of readers, converting a private character failure into a visible institutional embarrassment. The Board should therefore treat public professional identification as an aggravating factor that strengthens the case for disciplinary action and may inform the severity of the response, without treating its absence as a shield against Code jurisdiction. To do otherwise would produce the perverse outcome that engineers whose convictions attract media attention face discipline while equally dishonest engineers whose convictions go unreported do not.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision3: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
cited provision4: BER_Case_62-14
cited provision5: BER_Case_68-7
cited provision6: BER_Case_Precedent_Personal_Misconduct
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The Board's ruling in Case 72-6 does not establish a fully clear and administrable threshold for when personal misconduct triggers Code jurisdiction, and this doctrinal ambiguity carries real institutional costs. Both examples in Case 72-6 involve felony-level dishonesty offenses — theft in the first degree and fraudulent tax filing — so the ruling definitively covers serious felonies involving moral turpitude, particularly those rooted in deception. However, the Board's reasoning, which emphasizes honesty as a core professional virtue and the Code's purpose of sustaining public confidence, is broad enough in principle to reach misdemeanor dishonesty offenses, patterns of minor fraudulent conduct, or even serious non-dishonesty felonies such as violent crimes. The Board's caveat about professional societies exercising judiciousness in disciplining personal conduct acknowledges this ambiguity without resolving it. A more administrable standard would distinguish along at least three axes: first, whether the offense involves dishonesty, fraud, or breach of trust, which directly implicates the character traits the Code demands; second, whether the offense constitutes a felony or a pattern of repeated misconduct rather than an isolated minor infraction; and third, whether the conduct occurred in a context — such as employment or professional dealings — that creates a nexus to engineering practice even if not to engineering services. Case 72-6 establishes the outer boundary clearly for serious dishonesty felonies but leaves the interior of the zone ungoverned, inviting inconsistent application to lesser offenses.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The aggravated nature of Engineer A's conduct — committing additional fraudulent acts during supervised probation while actively employed as an engineer — warrants a qualitatively more severe disciplinary response than a single isolated conviction, and the Board's failure to address proportionality of sanctions explicitly is a meaningful gap in the ruling. Engineer A's situation presents at least three compounding factors absent in Engineer B's case: first, the repetition of dishonest conduct demonstrating a settled disposition rather than a momentary lapse; second, the exploitation of a second chance granted by the criminal justice system, which transforms the probation period from a mitigating circumstance into an aggravating one; and third, the concurrent engineering employment, which means the fraudulent conduct occurred while Engineer A was actively representing himself as a trustworthy professional. A proportionality framework would recognize that Engineer B's single conviction, though serious, reflects a different and less severe pattern than Engineer A's escalating criminal career conducted in the shadow of professional employment. The Board's single conclusion that personal misconduct of the types described violates the Code treats both cases as equivalent, which may be appropriate for establishing jurisdiction but is insufficient for guiding the severity of disciplinary responses. Future Board guidance should articulate that repeated dishonesty during probation while employed as an engineer represents an aggravated category warranting the most serious available sanctions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision3: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between the Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation principle and the Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon is real but resolvable through a structured two-stage analysis. The Scope Limitation principle correctly warns against professional societies becoming general arbiters of members' entire lives, which would be both overreaching and practically unworkable. The Expansive Interpretation Canon correctly rejects the opposite extreme — confining the Code only to conduct occurring during the delivery of engineering services — which would allow engineers to be serial fraudsters in their personal lives without professional consequence. The Board's resolution in Case 72-6 implicitly navigates this tension by anchoring jurisdiction in two limiting conditions: first, that the personal misconduct must have been adjudicated by legal authority, thereby avoiding the professional society substituting its own factual determinations for those of courts; and second, that the conduct must involve dishonesty, fraud, or similar character failures that directly contradict the virtues the Code identifies as constitutive of professional identity. This two-condition framework prevents overreach into genuinely private conduct — a traffic violation, a personal dispute, a lifestyle choice — while capturing conduct that reveals a character fundamentally incompatible with the trust the public must place in engineers. The Board should make this limiting framework explicit in future rulings to prevent the Expansive Interpretation Canon from swallowing the Scope Limitation caveat entirely.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
cited provision3: State_Engineering_Registration_Law_Personal_Misconduct_Discipline
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate principle does create a morally arbitrary distinction between engineers whose dishonest conduct has resulted in criminal conviction and those whose equally dishonest conduct has not yet attracted prosecution. Two engineers who engage in identical fraudulent schemes may face entirely different professional consequences based solely on prosecutorial discretion, investigative resources, or the willingness of victims to report. This arbitrariness is a genuine weakness in the Board's framework. However, the predicate requirement serves important institutional functions that justify retaining it as the primary trigger: it protects engineers from professional discipline based on unproven allegations, it avoids the professional society conducting its own quasi-criminal investigations, and it ensures a baseline of procedural fairness through the criminal justice process. The appropriate response to the arbitrariness concern is not to abandon the conviction predicate but to supplement it with a parallel track for cases where clear and convincing evidence of serious dishonesty exists independent of criminal proceedings — for example, civil fraud judgments, regulatory findings, or documented patterns of deception in professional dealings. Case 72-6 does not foreclose this supplemental track, and the Board should clarify in future rulings that criminal conviction is a sufficient but not necessarily exclusive predicate for Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
cited provision3: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The tension between grounding discipline in external reputational harm versus intrinsic character failure is genuine and risks producing inconsistent outcomes if left unresolved. If the Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm principle is treated as a primary rather than aggravating rationale, then an engineer whose conviction is widely publicized faces discipline while an equally dishonest engineer whose conviction goes unreported does not — an outcome determined by media coverage rather than moral culpability. This would be both arbitrary and unjust. The more defensible reading of the Board's reasoning is that the Honesty as Core Professional Virtue principle is the primary and universal basis for jurisdiction, applicable to both Engineer A and Engineer B regardless of publicity, while the public identification of Engineer B functions as an aggravating circumstance that intensifies the profession's interest in responding visibly and promptly. Under this reading, the two principles are not in conflict but operate at different levels: one establishes jurisdiction and the other informs the urgency and visibility of the disciplinary response. The Board should make this hierarchy explicit to prevent future cases from being decided on the morally irrelevant basis of whether a local newspaper happened to identify the convicted engineer's profession.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: BER_Case_62-14
cited provision2: BER_Case_68-7
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision4: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The Board's prolonged reservation of judgment in Cases 62-14 and 68-7 did create a doctrinal ambiguity that engineers might reasonably have interpreted as implied permission — or at least institutional tolerance — for personal misconduct outside engineering practice. Whether this ambiguity generated a cognizable reliance interest sufficient to raise fairness concerns about retroactive application of expanded jurisdiction is a more difficult question. In the context of criminal conduct, however, the reliance interest argument is substantially weakened: engineers cannot credibly claim they committed theft, check fraud, or tax fraud in reliance on the NSPE's prior silence about Code jurisdiction. The wrongfulness of these acts is established by criminal law entirely independently of professional ethics codes, and no reasonable engineer would commit fraud believing that the NSPE's doctrinal ambiguity provided professional cover. The more legitimate fairness concern is institutional rather than individual: the Board's decade-long failure to resolve the jurisdiction question may have deprived the profession of a deterrent signal that could have influenced conduct at the margins. This institutional failure does not, however, invalidate the Case 72-6 ruling or make its application to Engineer A and Engineer B unfair, since both engaged in conduct that was independently criminal and independently dishonest. The Board's obligation going forward is to maintain doctrinal clarity so that the profession is not again left in uncertainty about the Code's reach.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed his duty of honesty when he accepted engineering employment without disclosing his criminal conviction and probationary status. The categorical imperative demands that we act only on maxims we could universalize without contradiction. The maxim 'accept professional employment while concealing adjudicated criminal dishonesty' cannot be universalized: if all engineers followed this maxim, the trust that makes employment relationships possible would collapse, since employers could never rely on the implicit representation that a new hire is free from serious legal encumbrances. Engineer A's concealment therefore fails the universalizability test. Moreover, Kant's formula of humanity demands that we treat persons as ends in themselves, never merely as means. Engineer A's employer was treated as a means — a source of income and professional cover — rather than as an agent entitled to make an informed employment decision. The subsequent fraudulent check writing during probation compounds this deontological failure: it demonstrates that Engineer A's dishonesty was not a past aberration but an ongoing disposition, and it exploits the trust extended by both the criminal justice system and the engineering employer. The categorical imperative thus demands that personal integrity be treated as a universal professional obligation, and Engineer A's conduct violated this demand at multiple independent points.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision3: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, extending the NSPE Code's disciplinary reach to personal criminal misconduct involving dishonesty is justified by the aggregate public benefits that outweigh the costs of professional society overreach. The primary consequentialist benefit is the protection and maintenance of public trust in the engineering profession, which is a precondition for engineers' ability to serve the public effectively. Engineers are entrusted with public safety, infrastructure, and complex technical decisions; this trust depends on the public's reasonable belief that engineers are honest actors. When engineers are publicly convicted of dishonesty-based crimes — particularly when their professional identity is linked to the conviction, as in Engineer B's case — the reputational damage extends beyond the individual to the profession as a whole, reducing the public's willingness to rely on engineering judgment and certification. The consequentialist case is further strengthened by the deterrent effect of professional discipline supplementing criminal sanctions: engineers who know that conviction for dishonesty offenses will cost them their professional standing face a stronger incentive to refrain from such conduct than criminal penalties alone provide. The costs of overreach — chilling minor personal conduct, burdening professional societies with investigative functions — are real but manageable if jurisdiction is limited to adjudicated criminal conduct involving dishonesty or moral turpitude, as the Board's framework implies. On balance, the consequentialist calculus supports the Board's expansive jurisdictional conclusion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
cited provision3: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303 and Q304: From a virtue ethics perspective, both Engineer A and Engineer B reveal settled dispositions of dishonesty that are fundamentally incompatible with the character traits the NSPE Code identifies as constitutive of professional engineering identity, though the evidence is stronger and more damning in Engineer A's case. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not merely as isolated acts but as expressions of character — stable dispositions that define who a person is and how they reliably act across contexts. Engineer A's pattern is particularly revealing: the initial theft conviction demonstrates a willingness to take what is not his; the subsequent fraudulent check writing during supervised probation demonstrates that this willingness persists even under conditions of heightened legal scrutiny and after experiencing criminal consequences. This pattern is the behavioral signature of a settled dishonest disposition rather than a situational lapse. Engineer B's single conviction for filing fraudulent tax returns, while less patterned, nonetheless reveals a deliberate choice to deceive a public institution over time — tax fraud is not typically a momentary impulse but a sustained course of conduct requiring repeated affirmative misrepresentations. Both dispositions are irreconcilable with the virtues of honesty, integrity, and honor that the Code demands, because these virtues require consistency across contexts: an engineer who is honest in professional dealings but dishonest in personal financial matters does not possess the virtue of honesty — he merely performs honesty when professionally observed. The Code's whole-person integrity standard reflects this virtue-theoretic insight correctly.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Even if Engineer A had voluntarily disclosed his theft conviction and probationary status to his new employer before accepting employment, such proactive transparency would have mitigated but almost certainly not negated the ethical violation arising from his subsequent fraudulent check writing during probation. The disclosure would have addressed the independent violation identified in Q101 — the deceptive acceptance of employment — and would have demonstrated a degree of honesty and self-awareness consistent with the Code's demands. It might also have been treated as a significant mitigating factor in any disciplinary proceeding. However, the subsequent commission of check fraud during probation while employed as an engineer constitutes an independent, aggravated, and self-standing ethics violation that no prior disclosure could retroactively cure. The fraudulent check writing reveals a continuing dishonest disposition that persists regardless of the employer's knowledge of the prior conviction. Indeed, one might argue that committing additional fraud after voluntarily disclosing a prior conviction would be even more damning from a character standpoint, since it would demonstrate that Engineer A's honesty in disclosure was strategic rather than reflective of genuine reform. The counterfactual therefore confirms that the core ethics violation in Engineer A's case is the pattern of dishonest conduct, not merely the failure to disclose.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If newspaper accounts had not identified Engineer B as an engineer, the Board would likely have reached the same jurisdictional conclusion under the whole-person integrity standard articulated in Case 72-6, but the absence of public identification might have reduced the perceived urgency of the disciplinary response. The Board's reasoning in Case 72-6 is grounded primarily in the Code's honesty provisions and the character incompatibility between deliberate fraud and professional engineering identity — neither of which depends on media coverage. However, the Board's explicit reference to the newspaper accounts suggests that public professional identification played a role in the analysis, potentially as a triggering factor that brought the case to the NSPE's attention or as a rationale for asserting jurisdiction. If the Board's reasoning improperly conflates the aggravating circumstance of public identification with the threshold question of whether personal criminal misconduct independently violates the Code, it creates the problematic outcome noted in Q203: discipline becomes contingent on media coverage rather than moral culpability. The corrective is to treat the conviction itself as the jurisdictional trigger and public identification as an aggravating factor affecting the severity and urgency of response, not as a necessary element of the violation. This reading is consistent with the Board's broader reasoning in Case 72-6 and should be made explicit in future rulings.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: BER_Case_62-14
cited provision2: BER_Case_68-7
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision4: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q403: It is unlikely that definitive resolution of the personal misconduct jurisdiction question in Case 62-14 or Case 68-7 would have deterred Engineer A or Engineer B from their criminal conduct, since neither engineer appears to have been engaged in the kind of marginal cost-benefit calculation that professional ethics guidance typically influences. Theft, check fraud, and tax fraud are not acts that engineers commit because they are uncertain whether the NSPE Code reaches personal conduct; they are committed for financial gain or under financial pressure, with the primary deterrent being criminal law. However, the Board's prolonged doctrinal ambiguity does carry genuine institutional costs that constitute a form of ethical failure at the organizational level. By reserving judgment for over a decade, the NSPE failed to provide clear guidance to state registration boards, local ethics committees, and individual engineers about the profession's expectations regarding personal integrity. This ambiguity may have led to inconsistent disciplinary outcomes across jurisdictions, emboldened some engineers to treat personal dishonesty as beyond professional accountability, and deprived the profession of the norm-reinforcing function that clear ethical standards serve. The Board's obligation in Case 72-6 to resolve the previously reserved question is therefore not merely a matter of doctrinal tidiness but reflects a genuine institutional duty to provide timely, clear, and actionable ethical guidance — a duty whose prolonged breach itself warrants acknowledgment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
cited provision2: Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q404: The Board's conclusion would likely not have differed if Engineer A's fraudulent check writing had been directed against his engineering employer rather than third parties, nor if Engineer B's tax fraud had involved misrepresentation of engineering business income — but these variations do illuminate the moral architecture of the Board's whole-person integrity standard. If Engineer A's fraud had targeted his employer, the nexus to engineering practice would have been direct and the case for Code jurisdiction would have been even clearer, but the Board's reasoning in Case 72-6 explicitly rejects the requirement of such a nexus. The whole-person integrity standard holds that dishonesty is disqualifying regardless of its target, because the character deficiency it reveals is not context-specific. Similarly, if Engineer B's tax fraud had involved engineering income, the connection to professional practice would have been tighter, but the Board's analysis treats the fraud as disqualifying because of what it reveals about character, not because of its subject matter. These counterfactuals therefore confirm that the Board's standard is genuinely character-based rather than conduct-nexus-based: the moral relevance of the connection between criminal conduct and engineering practice is properly treated as zero for jurisdictional purposes, though it may remain relevant as an aggravating factor for sanctions. This is the correct approach under a virtue ethics framework, since character traits are by definition cross-contextual — an engineer who defrauds the IRS has the same dishonest character as one who defrauds a client.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.794974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the 'Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation' principle—which cautions against professional societies overreaching into purely personal conduct—and the 'Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon'—which rejects a narrow limitation of the Code to professional services only—was resolved in Case 72-6 by anchoring the expansive interpretation in two independent limiting conditions rather than eliminating the scope limitation entirely. The Board did not assert unlimited jurisdiction over all personal misconduct; instead, it conditioned Code jurisdiction on (1) prior legal adjudication of wrongdoing by a competent authority, and (2) a nexus between the character deficiency revealed by the misconduct and the core professional virtues of honesty, integrity, and honor that the Code explicitly names as constitutive of engineering identity. This dual-condition resolution preserves the scope limitation as a genuine constraint while permitting the expansive interpretation to operate within it. The practical effect is that the 'Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate' principle functions as a gatekeeping mechanism that prevents the professional society from substituting its own factual judgment for that of the legal system, thereby respecting the scope limitation, while the 'Honesty Invoked as Core Professional Virtue' principle supplies the substantive bridge between personal criminal conduct and professional ethics obligations. Neither principle was abandoned; rather, the scope limitation was satisfied by the predicate-adjudication requirement, and the expansive interpretation was satisfied by the character-virtue nexus requirement. This synthesis produces a coherent but narrow expansion of Code jurisdiction that is defensible against overreach objections precisely because it is not self-executing—it requires both external legal validation and internal character relevance before discipline attaches.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The 'Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm' principle applied to Engineer B and the 'Honesty Invoked as Core Professional Virtue' principle applied to both engineers are not fully reconcilable within the Board's reasoning, and this irreconcilability reveals a latent inconsistency in the case's doctrinal foundation. The Board's treatment of Engineer B's newspaper identification as an ethically relevant aggravating circumstance implies that reputational harm to the profession—an externally contingent fact dependent on media coverage—is a component of the ethical violation. However, the 'Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard' applied to both engineers grounds the violation in intrinsic character deficiency that exists independently of public exposure. If the character-based principle is primary, then Engineer B's violation is neither greater nor lesser than it would have been absent newspaper coverage, and the reputational harm principle is merely illustrative rather than constitutive of the violation. Conversely, if the reputational harm principle is independently operative, then an engineer whose identical criminal conviction was never publicly linked to his profession would face a lesser or potentially non-existent ethics violation under the same Code provisions—an outcome that is arbitrary from a moral standpoint and inconsistent with the Board's stated commitment to the 'whole-person' standard. The Board did not explicitly resolve this tension, and the failure to do so leaves open the question of whether public professional identification is a necessary condition, a sufficient aggravating condition, or merely a rhetorically convenient illustration of harm that the character-based standard already captures independently. The more principled resolution—consistent with the Board's own expansive interpretation canon—would treat reputational harm as illustrative only, with the character-integrity standard doing the primary normative work, ther…
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 403
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The 'Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation' invoked for Cases 62-14 and 68-7 stands in productive but unacknowledged tension with the 'Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction' principles applied in Case 72-6, and this tension illuminates an important lesson about principle prioritization: the Board treated the 'Public Confidence as Ethics Code Foundational Purpose' principle as lexically superior to any reliance interest that engineers might have derived from the prior reserved-judgment decisions. By characterizing Cases 62-14 and 68-7 as instances of deliberate doctrinal reservation rather than implicit permission, the Board avoided the conclusion that prolonged ambiguity had created a legitimate expectation that personal misconduct was beyond Code reach. This prioritization is defensible on the ground that the Code's foundational purpose—protecting public confidence in engineering—cannot be held hostage to the profession's own institutional delay in resolving jurisdictional questions. However, the Board's reasoning implicitly acknowledges that the prior reserved-judgment decisions did create a 'previously reserved question' that required 'definitive resolution,' which concedes that the doctrinal state before Case 72-6 was genuinely ambiguous rather than clearly settled against jurisdiction. The lesson for principle prioritization is that foundational-purpose principles—those that articulate why the Code exists at all—will generally override procedural or reliance-based constraints when the two conflict, but this prioritization carries an institutional cost: it retroactively exposes engineers who acted during the period of ambiguity to discipline under a standard that was not clearly articulated at the time of their conduct. The Board's failure to address this fairness dimension explicitly represents an incomplete synthesis of the competing principles, and a more complete resolution would have acknowledged the retroactivity concern while explain…
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should the NSPE Board of Ethical Review assert Code of Ethics jurisdiction over Engineer A's and Engineer B's personal criminal misconduct involving dishonesty, or limit Code jurisdiction to conduct directly related to the performance of engineering services?
focus: Whether personal criminal misconduct involving dishonesty — such as theft, fraudulent check-writing, or fraudulent tax returns — falls within the NSPE Code of Ethics jurisdiction, requiring the Board to resolve the previously reserved question from Cases 62-14 and 68-7 and affirm that such conduct violates the Code regardless of whether it occurred within engineering practice.
option1: Affirm that the Code of Ethics reaches personal criminal misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — regardless of nexus to engineering services — grounding jurisdiction in the Code's foundational public-confidence purpose and the whole-person character integrity standard, conditioned on prior legal adjudication.
option2: Decline to assert Code jurisdiction over personal criminal conduct unrelated to the delivery of engineering services, treating the Code's honesty provisions as applicable only to professional dealings with clients, employers, and the public in an engineering capacity.
option3: Limit Code jurisdiction to cases where the engineer's professional identity was publicly linked to the criminal conviction — as with Engineer B's newspaper coverage — treating public reputational harm to the profession as the necessary trigger for disciplinary reach beyond engineering services.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A have disclosed his criminal conviction and probationary status to his new engineering employer before accepting employment, or was he permitted to accept employment without such disclosure on the ground that no explicit Code provision required pre-employment criminal disclosure?
focus: Whether Engineer A was obligated to disclose his criminal conviction for theft and his supervised probationary status to his new engineering employer before accepting employment, and whether silent acceptance of that employment constitutes an independent ethics violation beyond the underlying criminal conduct.
option1: Proactively inform the prospective engineering employer of the theft conviction and supervised probationary status before accepting the employment offer, treating this information as material to the employer's hiring decision and required by the Code's affirmative honesty obligations.
option2: Accept employment without volunteering the conviction, but answer truthfully and completely if the employer directly asks about criminal history or legal encumbrances — treating the Code's honesty obligation as prohibiting active misrepresentation rather than imposing an affirmative duty of unsolicited disclosure.
option3: Refrain from accepting engineering employment during the probationary period entirely, recognizing that the combination of legal supervision and professional trust creates an irreconcilable conflict that cannot be resolved by disclosure alone, and that the most honest course is to defer professional employment until legal obligations are discharged.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer B submit to professional disciplinary review upon his conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns, treating the conviction itself as sufficient to trigger Code jurisdiction, or should Code jurisdiction be conditioned on the public identification of his engineering profession in connection with the conviction?
focus: Whether Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — with his engineering identity publicly noted in newspaper accounts — triggers Code of Ethics obligations requiring submission to professional disciplinary review, and whether the public identification of his profession is a necessary predicate for jurisdiction or merely an aggravating circumstance.
option1: Recognize that the conviction for filing fraudulent tax returns is itself sufficient to trigger Code jurisdiction and submit to professional disciplinary review, treating the public newspaper identification as an aggravating circumstance that heightens but does not create the ethical obligation.
option2: Decline to submit to professional disciplinary review on the ground that the tax fraud conviction bears no nexus to engineering services rendered, arguing that the Code's honesty provisions apply to professional dealings rather than to personal financial conduct with government authorities.
option3: Accept that the public identification of his engineering profession in newspaper accounts created a distinct reputational harm to the profession sufficient to trigger Code jurisdiction, while reserving the argument that an identical conviction never publicly linked to engineering would not independently violate the Code.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should the NSPE Board of Ethical Review articulate an explicit dishonesty-nexus threshold criterion limiting Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct to convictions for offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude, or should the Board issue a general ruling that personal misconduct violates the Code without specifying a limiting principle?
focus: Whether the NSPE Board of Ethical Review should establish a principled, administrable threshold specifying that Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct attaches only to criminal convictions for offenses whose essential element is dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — thereby reconciling the expansive interpretation canon with the professional society disciplinary scope limitation — or whether the Board's general ruling in Case 72-6 is sufficient without a limiting principle.
option1: Articulate an explicit standard limiting Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct to criminal convictions for offenses whose essential element is dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — consistent with state engineering registration law standards — thereby providing an administrable boundary that honors both the expansive public-confidence purpose and the judiciousness caveat.
option2: Rule that personal misconduct of the types described violates the Code without articulating a specific limiting principle, leaving the precise threshold for future cases to be determined on a fact-specific basis as the Board's judiciousness caveat implies — trusting that the two present cases provide sufficient guidance by example.
option3: Adopt a bright-line rule limiting Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct to felony convictions — regardless of whether the offense involves dishonesty — on the ground that the felony/misdemeanor distinction provides a clear, legally established threshold that avoids the professional society substituting its own moral gradations for those of the criminal law.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the NSPE Board of Ethical Review treat Engineer A's repeated criminal dishonesty during supervised probation while employed as an engineer as a qualitatively aggravated ethics violation warranting the most serious available disciplinary response, or should it apply the same jurisdictional conclusion as Engineer B's single conviction without distinguishing the severity of the pattern?
focus: Whether Engineer A's pattern of repeated criminal dishonesty — committing fraudulent check-writing during supervised probation while actively employed as an engineer — warrants recognition as a qualitatively aggravated category of ethics violation distinct from a single isolated conviction, and whether the Board should address proportionality of disciplinary response explicitly.
option1: Explicitly distinguish Engineer A's repeated criminal dishonesty during supervised probation while employed as an engineer as a qualitatively aggravated ethics violation — reflecting a settled dishonest disposition and exploitation of institutional trust — and recommend the most serious available disciplinary response to state registration boards.
option2: Issue a single jurisdictional conclusion that personal misconduct of the types described violates the Code, treating Engineer A and Engineer B equivalently for purposes of the Board's advisory ruling and leaving proportionality of sanctions to state registration boards with actual disciplinary authority.
option3: Acknowledge Engineer A's pattern of repeated dishonesty as an aggravating circumstance within the same jurisdictional framework applicable to Engineer B, noting that the pattern strengthens the case for discipline without creating a formally distinct category of violation — preserving doctrinal simplicity while signaling the heightened moral gravity.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should the NSPE Board of Ethical Review treat criminal conviction as the exclusive predicate for Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct involving dishonesty, or should it recognize that equivalent evidence of dishonest character — such as civil fraud judgments or documented patterns of deception — may independently trigger Code obligations even absent criminal conviction?
focus: Whether the NSPE Board of Ethical Review should resolve the tension between the Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate principle — which grounds professional discipline in prior criminal conviction — and the Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard — which evaluates intrinsic character regardless of prosecutorial outcomes — by treating conviction as a sufficient but not exclusive predicate for Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct.
option1: Affirm that criminal conviction is a sufficient predicate for Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct involving dishonesty, while clarifying that equivalent official determinations — civil fraud judgments, regulatory findings, or documented patterns of deception in professional dealings — may also serve as alternative predicates, ensuring that equally dishonest engineers are not arbitrarily exempted based on prosecutorial discretion.
option2: Limit Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct to cases where a competent criminal court has entered a conviction, treating this as the exclusive predicate that protects engineers from professional discipline based on contested allegations and preserves the institutional division between criminal adjudication and professional oversight.
option3: Adopt the whole-person character integrity standard as the primary jurisdictional basis, permitting the Board to assert Code jurisdiction over personal dishonesty whenever clear and convincing evidence of a settled dishonest disposition exists — regardless of whether criminal prosecution has occurred — on the ground that moral culpability does not depend on prosecutorial outcomes.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Disclosure
type: AdjudicatedWrongdoingEmploymentApplicationCompelledDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted employment as an engineer during court-supervised probation for theft without disclosing the adjudicated conviction and probationary status to the employing firm.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Application Compelled Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to disclose his adjudicated theft conviction and probationary status to the engineering firm that employed him during probation, as this adjudicated wrongdoing was material to the employer's assessment of his integrity and fitness for professional employment.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III; BER Case 75-5; BER Case 03-6 (analogous precedent)
sourcetext: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation
temporalscope: At the time of accepting employment during the probationary period
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
textreferences: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.465315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Begins Probation
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Ongoing_Criminal_Supervision_Constraint
activates constraint: Probation_Compliance_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Conduct_Under_Scrutiny_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A moves from incarcerated status to conditional liberty; professional practice may resume; legal supervision remains active; any further misconduct now carries compounded consequences
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Comply_With_Probation_Terms
creates obligation: Disclose_Status_If_Required_By_Licensing_Board
creates obligation: Refrain_From_Further_Criminal_Conduct
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After jail sentence served, before probation fraud
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: Following incarceration, Engineer A is released and placed under criminal probation, a conditional liberty status with legal obligations and restrictions. This event creates a structured supervisory context within which Engineer A resumes life and professional activity.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Commits Probation Fraud
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed professional engineer, under criminal probation
foreseen unintended effects: Additional criminal exposure
foreseen unintended effects: Compounded damage to professional reputation
foreseen unintended effects: Further harm to public trust in the engineering profession
foreseen unintended effects: Violation of probation terms
guided by principle text: Personal gain (non-professional, self-serving)
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Illicit financial gain through fraudulent check scheme
requires capability text: Ethical judgment
requires capability text: Integrity under legal constraint
requires capability text: Legal compliance
requires capability text: Professional self-regulation
temporal marker: During five-year supervised probation period, while employed as an engineer
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Legal obligation to comply with terms of supervised probation
violates obligation text: Legal obligation to refrain from fraud
violates obligation text: NSPE Code §1, highest standards of integrity
violates obligation text: NSPE Code §3, avoid conduct discrediting the honor and dignity of the profession
violates obligation text: NSPE Preamble, uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession
violates obligation text: Obligation of restitution imposed by court sentence
violates obligation text: Public trust obligation inherent in professional licensure
within competence: false
comment: While under active supervised probation and employed as an engineer, Engineer A deliberately engaged in writing and cashing fraudulent checks, constituting a second distinct episode of intentional criminal misconduct.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Commits Probation Fraud → Probation Fraud Compounds Record
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: While under active supervised probation and employed as an engineer, Engineer A deliberately engaged in check fraud; Engineer A's commission of check fraud during the probation period results in a compounded criminal record
cause: Engineer A Commits Probation Fraud
counterfactual: Without the deliberate commission of check fraud during probation, the criminal record would not have been compounded; the probation violation would not have occurred
effect: Probation Fraud Compounds Record
necessary factors: Active probationary status at time of second offense
necessary factors: Deliberate volitional decision to commit check fraud
necessary factors: Legal processing of the new criminal conduct
necessary factors: Probation violation proceedings triggered by new offense
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Existing probation + deliberate new criminal act + criminal conviction for check fraud + probation violation finding
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Commits Theft
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed professional engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Criminal prosecution
foreseen unintended effects: Damage to professional reputation
foreseen unintended effects: Potential loss of engineering license
guided by principle text: Personal gain (non-professional, self-serving)
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Personal financial or material gain through theft
requires capability text: Ethical judgment
requires capability text: Legal compliance
requires capability text: Professional self-regulation
temporal marker: Prior to probation period; initial criminal offense
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation text: General legal obligation to refrain from criminal conduct
violates obligation text: NSPE Code §1, highest standards of integrity
violates obligation text: NSPE Code §3, avoid conduct discrediting the honor and dignity of the profession
violates obligation text: NSPE Preamble, uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession
violates obligation text: Public trust obligation inherent in professional licensure
within competence: false
comment: Engineer A made a deliberate decision to commit theft in the first degree, resulting in criminal charges, a guilty plea, a jail sentence, five years of supervised probation, and a restitution obligation.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Commits Theft → Engineer A Pleads Guilty
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A made a deliberate decision to commit theft in the first degree, resulting in criminal charges
cause: Engineer A Commits Theft
counterfactual: Without the deliberate act of theft, no criminal charges would have been filed and no guilty plea would have been entered
effect: Engineer A Pleads Guilty
necessary factors: Criminal charges being filed by prosecuting authority
necessary factors: Legal system processing of the criminal matter
necessary factors: Volitional act of theft by Engineer A
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Commission of theft + criminal charges + decision to enter guilty plea
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Self-Recognition
type: CriminalConvictionDishonestyCharacterIncompatibilitySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that his theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing were inherently incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice and triggered professional ethics obligations
casecontext: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree, was sentenced to jail and probation, then committed further fraud while employed as an engineer — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to submit to professional disciplinary review and disclose conviction status upon pleading guilty to first-degree theft
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.465467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Criminal Conviction Honest Employment Disclosure Execution
type: CriminalConvictionHonestEmploymentDisclosureExecutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Criminal Conviction Honest Employment Disclosure Execution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to honestly disclose his theft conviction and probationary status to the engineering firm that employed him during his probation period
casecontext: Engineer A was employed as an engineer by another firm during his five-year probation period, creating an obligation to disclose his conviction and probationary status to that employer
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to proactively disclose criminal conviction and court-supervised probation status at the time of accepting engineering employment
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
textreferences: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.466298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise During Probation
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A engaged in fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during probation, constituting direct participation in dishonest enterprise while holding professional status.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from engaging in fraudulent conduct — specifically the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks — while employed as a professional engineer, as such conduct constitutes association with dishonest enterprise incompatible with the NSPE Code's prohibition on association with fraudulent activity.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.d; BER Case 75-5
sourcetext: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
temporalscope: Throughout professional employment as an engineer
textreferences: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.465173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Scope Self-Application Case 72-6
type: PersonalMisconductNSPEEthicsCodeScopeSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Personal Misconduct NSPE Ethics Code Scope Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to possess and exercise the capability to recognize that his theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing — though not directly related to engineering practice — fell within the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics as personal misconduct reflecting on his character and fitness to practice.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — Engineer A's failure to apply ethics code to personal criminal conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability — Engineer A did not recognize or act on the ethics code's application to his personal criminal conduct.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.471868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Personal Misconduct NSPE Ethics Code Scope Self-Application
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionalBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdictional Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics extended to his personal dishonesty-based criminal conduct — theft and fraudulent check-writing — even though these acts were not performed in a professional engineering capacity
casecontext: Engineer A's theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probationary engineering employment implicated NSPE Code provisions extending to personal misconduct reflecting on character and integrity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to submit to professional disciplinary review and recognize that personal dishonesty triggers Code obligations
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.466013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Pleads Guilty
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Licensure_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Honesty_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Trust_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from accused to convicted; criminal record established; professional standing formally implicated
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Employer_Notification_Consideration
creates obligation: Licensing_Board_Disclosure_Obligation
creates obligation: NSPE_Ethics_Review_Eligibility
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After theft commission, prior to sentencing
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A enters a guilty plea to theft charges, formally establishing criminal culpability in a court of law. This legal outcome transforms the accusation into an official record of wrongdoing.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Pleads Guilty → Engineer A Serves Jail Time
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A enters a guilty plea to theft charges, formally establishing criminal culpability in a court, leading to incarceration as a consequence of the theft conviction
cause: Engineer A Pleads Guilty
counterfactual: Without the guilty plea and resulting conviction, incarceration would not have followed; a lesser charge or acquittal might have avoided jail time
effect: Engineer A Serves Jail Time
necessary factors: Formal guilty plea establishing criminal culpability
necessary factors: Judicial sentencing decision imposing custodial sentence
necessary factors: Severity of theft in the first degree warranting incarceration
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Guilty plea + first-degree theft conviction + judicial imposition of custodial sentence
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Probationary Employment Aggravated Misconduct Ethics Escalation
type: ProbationaryEmploymentAggravatedMisconductEthicsEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Probationary Employment Aggravated Misconduct Ethics Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that committing fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during court-supervised probation constituted an aggravated ethics violation compounding his original theft conviction
casecontext: Engineer A committed fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during five years of court-supervised probation for first-degree theft — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to refrain from further dishonest acts during probationary engineering employment and to recognize the heightened ethical gravity of employment-context fraud during probation
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.465735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Probationary Status Employment Honest Disclosure Constraint Instance
type: ProbationaryStatusEmploymentHonestDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted employment as an engineer during court-supervised probation for theft conviction without disclosing his probationary status, then committed additional fraudulent check-writing while employed
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Probationary Status Employment Honest Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to honestly disclose his theft conviction and court-supervised probationary status to the engineering firm that employed him during his probation, and was prohibited from concealing that status from his employer.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §1 (highest standards of integrity), Preamble (honor and dignity); BER Case 72-6
sourcetext: Section 1—'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
temporalscope: At the time of accepting employment with the engineering firm during probation
textreferences: Section 1—'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Public Confidence in Profession Protection Through Personal Integrity
type: PublicConfidenceinProfessionProtectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Confidence in Profession Protection Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that his theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing undermined public confidence in the engineering profession and to act to protect that confidence by fulfilling his professional ethics obligations
casecontext: Engineer A's criminal conduct — both the original theft and the subsequent fraudulent check-writing during engineering employment — undermined public confidence in the integrity of licensed engineers
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to submit to disciplinary review and disclose conviction status, recognizing that personal dishonesty erodes public trust in engineering as a profession
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.466959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Repeated Criminal Dishonesty During Professional Employment Aggravated Violation
type: RepeatedCriminalDishonestyDuringProfessionalEmploymentAggravatedViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, already on probation for first-degree theft, committed additional fraud through fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer, creating a pattern of repeated dishonest conduct during professional employment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Repeated Criminal Dishonesty During Professional Employment Aggravated Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from committing additional acts of criminal dishonesty — specifically fraudulent check-writing — while under court-supervised probation and actively employed as a professional engineer, as such conduct constituted an aggravated ethics violation compounding the original conviction with a pattern of repeated dishonesty in a professional employment context.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I, III; BER Case 75-5
sourcetext: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
temporalscope: Throughout the period of court-supervised probation while employed as an engineer
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
textreferences: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.464596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Serves Jail Time
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Employer_Duty_To_Know_Constraint
activates constraint: Licensure_Review_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A is physically removed from engineering practice; professional activity suspended de facto; public is temporarily protected from Engineer A's potential professional misconduct
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Employer_Awareness_Obligation_Upon_Return
creates obligation: Licensing_Authority_Must_Assess_Fitness
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After guilty plea, prior to probation
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A is incarcerated as a consequence of the theft conviction, serving a custodial sentence imposed by the court. This outcome removes Engineer A from professional practice for the duration of incarceration.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Serves Jail Time → Engineer A Begins Probation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A is incarcerated as a consequence of the theft conviction, serving a custodial sentence; following incarceration, Engineer A is released and placed under criminal probation, a conditional liberty arrangement
cause: Engineer A Serves Jail Time
counterfactual: Without the prior incarceration stemming from the theft conviction, the specific probationary supervision arrangement would not have been imposed
effect: Engineer A Begins Probation
necessary factors: Completion or partial completion of custodial sentence
necessary factors: Engineer A's eligibility for probationary release
necessary factors: Judicial or parole authority decision to impose probationary conditions
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Served jail time + judicial order for supervised probation upon release
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A's employment as engineer during Engineer A's probation period
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
from entity text: Engineer A's employment as engineer
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's probation period
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s probation period
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A's fraudulent check writing and cashing during Engineer A's employment as engineer
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
from entity text: Engineer A's fraudulent check writing and cashing
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's employment as engineer
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s employment as engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A's fraudulent check writing and cashing during Engineer A's probation period
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
from entity text: Engineer A's fraudulent check writing and cashing
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's probation period
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s probation period
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A's jail term before Engineer A's probation period
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation
from entity text: Engineer A's jail term
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's probation period
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s probation period
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A's theft charge and guilty plea before Engineer A's jail term
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a short jail term...
from entity text: Engineer A's theft charge and guilty plea
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's jail term
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s jail term
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Convicted Of Fraud
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Licensure_Review_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Honesty_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Trust_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer B moves from accused to convicted; fraud conviction formally recorded; professional standing implicated; engineering identity publicly linked to criminal conduct via press coverage
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Disclose_Conviction_If_Required
creates obligation: Licensing_Board_Must_Assess_Fitness_To_Practice
creates obligation: NSPE_Must_Determine_Whether_Code_Applies
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After fraudulent tax returns filed, at some point before the current case analysis
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer B is formally convicted following the filing of fraudulent tax returns, resulting in a criminal record for fraud. The conviction is the legal system's official determination of guilt.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Convicted Of Fraud → Engineer B's Identity Publicized
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B is formally convicted following the filing of fraudulent tax returns; press coverage of Engineer B's conviction explicitly identifies Engineer B as a licensed professional engineer
cause: Engineer B Convicted Of Fraud
counterfactual: Without the conviction, there would be no newsworthy event to report; without media coverage identifying professional status, the engineering community and licensing boards might not have been alerted
effect: Engineer B's Identity Publicized
necessary factors: Engineer B's status as a licensed professional engineer being known or discoverable
necessary factors: Formal criminal conviction creating a matter of public record
necessary factors: Media decision to include professional identity in coverage
necessary factors: Press or media interest in the conviction
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Public criminal conviction + media coverage + explicit identification of professional engineering status
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Self-Recognition
type: CriminalConvictionDishonestyCharacterIncompatibilitySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that his conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns was incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice and triggered professional ethics obligations
casecontext: Engineer B was convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns and publicly identified as an engineer in newspaper accounts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to submit to professional disciplinary review upon conviction for tax fraud
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.465604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Files Fraudulent Returns
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed professional engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Criminal prosecution risk
foreseen unintended effects: Damage to engineering profession's public reputation
foreseen unintended effects: Public exposure of professional identity
guided by principle text: Personal financial gain (non-professional, self-serving)
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Personal financial gain through tax fraud by misrepresenting income or obligations to the IRS
requires capability text: Ethical judgment
requires capability text: Legal compliance
requires capability text: Professional self-regulation
temporal marker: Prior to trial and conviction; specific date unspecified in case
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: Civic duty of honest compliance with tax law
violates obligation text: Legal obligation to file accurate tax returns
violates obligation text: NSPE Code §1, highest standards of integrity
violates obligation text: NSPE Code §3, avoid conduct discrediting the honor and dignity of the profession
violates obligation text: NSPE Preamble, uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession
violates obligation text: Public trust obligation inherent in professional licensure
within competence: false
comment: Engineer B deliberately filed fraudulent income tax returns with the IRS, a decision that led to criminal trial, conviction, and public press coverage identifying him as an engineer.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Files Fraudulent Returns → Engineer B Convicted Of Fraud
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B deliberately filed fraudulent income tax returns with the IRS, a decision that led to criminal conviction
cause: Engineer B Files Fraudulent Returns
counterfactual: Without the deliberate filing of fraudulent returns, no criminal tax fraud charges could have been brought and no conviction would have resulted
effect: Engineer B Convicted Of Fraud
necessary factors: Deliberate filing of materially false tax returns
necessary factors: Federal prosecution decision
necessary factors: IRS detection and investigation of the fraudulent filings
necessary factors: Sufficient evidence to support conviction
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Deliberate fraudulent filing + IRS investigation + federal prosecution + conviction at trial or by plea
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Scope Self-Application Case 72-6
type: PersonalMisconductNSPEEthicsCodeScopeSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Personal Misconduct NSPE Ethics Code Scope Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was obligated to possess and exercise the capability to recognize that his tax fraud conviction — though not directly related to engineering practice — fell within the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics as personal misconduct reflecting on his character and fitness to practice.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — Engineer B's failure to apply ethics code to personal criminal conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability — Engineer B did not recognize or act on the ethics code's application to his personal criminal conduct, particularly given his public identification as an engineer.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.472022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Personal Misconduct NSPE Ethics Code Scope Self-Application
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionalBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdictional Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics extended to his personal tax fraud conviction even though filing fraudulent tax returns is not an engineering-specific act
casecontext: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — a personal financial crime — implicated NSPE Code provisions extending to personal misconduct undermining public confidence in the profession
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to recognize that personal dishonesty-based criminal conduct falls within NSPE Code jurisdiction and triggers professional ethics obligations
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.466165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Public Confidence in Profession Protection Through Personal Integrity
type: PublicConfidenceinProfessionProtectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Confidence in Profession Protection Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to recognize that his tax fraud conviction — particularly as publicly reported with his engineering identity — undermined public confidence in the engineering profession and to act to protect that confidence
casecontext: Engineer B's publicly reported tax fraud conviction, with his engineering identity noted in newspaper accounts, created a direct threat to public confidence in the engineering profession
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to submit to disciplinary review and recognize that public identification as an engineer in criminal proceedings requires professional ethics response to protect profession-wide confidence
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.467120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Public Professional Identification Reputational Harm Recognition
type: PublicProfessionalIdentificationReputationalHarmRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Professional Identification Reputational Harm Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to recognize that his public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction created a specific reputational harm to the engineering profession and triggered heightened professional ethics obligations
casecontext: Newspaper accounts of Engineer B's tax fraud conviction specifically noted that he was an engineer, creating a public association between engineering and dishonest conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to recognize that media coverage linking his engineering identity to criminal conduct amplified his professional ethics obligations beyond those applicable to purely private misconduct
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.465864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Public Professional Identity Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational
type: PublicProfessionalIdentityCriminalConductProfessionReputationalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns was publicly reported with his engineering identity disclosed, causing reputational harm to the engineering profession regardless of the non-engineering nature of the offense.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Public Professional Identity Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction independently activated the NSPE Code's honor and dignity provisions, constraining him from treating the absence of a direct nexus between tax fraud and engineering practice as a basis for concluding no professional ethics violation occurred.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Preamble, Sections I, III; BER Case 75-5
sourcetext: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer
temporalscope: From the time of public reporting of the criminal conviction
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.464737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Public Professional Identity Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Constraint Instance
type: PublicProfessionalIdentityCriminalConductProfessionReputationalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was publicly identified as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns, creating a public linkage between engineering professional status and criminal dishonest conduct
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Public Professional Identity Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was subject to the constraint that his public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction independently activated the Code's honor and dignity provisions, prohibiting him from treating the absence of a direct nexus between the tax fraud and engineering work as a basis for concluding that no professional ethics violation had occurred.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §3, Preamble; BER Case 72-6
sourcetext: Section 3—'The Engineer will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession.'
temporalscope: From the time of public identification as an engineer in connection with the criminal conviction
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession for the acts of a few.
textreferences: Section 3—'The Engineer will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession.'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B's Identity Publicized
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: NSPE_Awareness_Obligation
activates constraint: Professional_Reputation_Management_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Accountability_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer B's misconduct becomes publicly associated with the engineering profession; reputational harm extends beyond individual to profession as a whole; NSPE and licensing bodies face external pressure to respond
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Licensing_Board_Heightened_Review_Obligation
creates obligation: NSPE_Must_Address_Public_Perception_Of_Engineer_Misconduct
emergency status: medium
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: At or shortly after Engineer B's conviction
temporal sequence: 12
urgency level: medium
comment: Press coverage of Engineer B's conviction explicitly identifies Engineer B as a licensed professional engineer, linking the criminal conduct to professional identity in the public record. This is an exogenous event that amplifies the professional consequences of the conviction.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B's Identity Publicized → NSPE Rules Personal Misconduct Covered
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Press coverage of Engineer B's conviction explicitly identifies Engineer B as a licensed professional engineer, contributing to the factual circumstances that compel the NSPE Board to rule that personal misconduct falls within engineering ethics
cause: Engineer B's Identity Publicized
counterfactual: Without the public identification of Engineer B's professional status, the reputational harm to the engineering profession would have been less visible, potentially reducing the urgency for the NSPE Board to issue a definitive ruling on personal misconduct
effect: NSPE Rules Personal Misconduct Covered
necessary factors: Public identification of Engineer B as a licensed professional engineer
necessary factors: The case being brought before the NSPE Board for ethical review
necessary factors: The precedent gap requiring fresh determination
necessary factors: The resulting reputational harm to the engineering profession from the publicized conviction
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer B (primary); press organizations (secondary)
sufficient factors: Publicized conviction identifying professional status + reputational harm to profession + case before NSPE Board + precedent gap = sufficient pressure and factual basis for definitive ruling
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B's conviction before newspaper accounts of the case
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer
from entity text: Engineer B's conviction
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: newspaper accounts of the case
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: newspaper accounts of the case
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B's filing of fraudulent tax returns before Engineer B's conviction
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns
from entity text: Engineer B's filing of fraudulent tax returns
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer B's conviction
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B s conviction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Cross-Profession Code Analogy
type: Cross-ProfessionEthicsCodeScopeAnalogicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Cross-Profession Ethics Code Scope Analogical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to reason by analogy across professional codes of ethics, noting that the NSPE Code embraces language similar to that found in other professions' codes regarding integrity, honor, and dignity, and using this convergence to support the expansive interpretation of code scope.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — cross-profession code analogy used to support purposive scope interpretation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Citing parallel language: 'the NSPE Code of Ethics embraces language similar to that found in the codes of other professions to the effect stated in §3.'
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Thus it is that the NSPE Code of Ethics embraces language similar to that found in the codes of other professions to the effect stated in §3.
textreferences: Likewise, §1 of the code speaks to '...the highest standards of integrity...' And the preamble enjoins the engineer '...to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession...'
textreferences: Thus it is that the NSPE Code of Ethics embraces language similar to that found in the codes of other professions to the effect stated in §3.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.471524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Disciplinary Scope Restraint Caveat
type: ProfessionalSocietyPersonalConductDisciplinaryScopeRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Society Personal Conduct Disciplinary Scope Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to exercise judicious restraint in asserting disciplinary jurisdiction over personal conduct, explicitly cautioning that professional societies must not undertake to control purely personal habits or conduct of individuals.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — disciplinary scope restraint caveat issued alongside the expansive jurisdiction ruling
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Issuing the explicit caveat: 'professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.'
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
textreferences: Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.470971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Legal Adjudication Predicate Grounding Engineer A
type: LegalAdjudicationPredicateDisciplinaryJurisdictionGroundingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Legal Adjudication Predicate Disciplinary Jurisdiction Grounding Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to ground its disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer A in the prior legal adjudication — guilty plea to theft in the first degree — rather than independently adjudicating the underlying personal conduct.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — Engineer A's guilty plea to theft used as legal predicate for professional disciplinary jurisdiction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Conditioning disciplinary action on the legal finding: 'when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly.'
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
textreferences: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.470716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Legal Adjudication Predicate Grounding Engineer B
type: LegalAdjudicationPredicateDisciplinaryJurisdictionGroundingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Legal Adjudication Predicate Disciplinary Jurisdiction Grounding Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to ground its disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer B in the prior legal adjudication — conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — rather than independently adjudicating the underlying personal conduct.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent tax returns used as legal predicate for professional disciplinary jurisdiction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Applying the same legal-predicate framework to Engineer B's tax fraud conviction as the basis for professional disciplinary jurisdiction.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
textreferences: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.470842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Prior Reserved Question Synthesis
type: BERPriorCaseReservedQuestionIdentificationandSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Prior Case Reserved Question Identification and Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to identify and synthesize the pattern of reserved questions from Cases 62-14 and 68-7, quoting the precise reservation language from each, to frame Case 72-6 as the occasion for definitive resolution.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — two prior reserved questions synthesized to frame the definitive ruling
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Systematically citing Cases 62-14 and 68-7 with their precise reservation language before announcing the definitive ruling in Case 72-6.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In Case No. 62-14... we noted in that case: 'We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.'
textreferences: In Case No. 62-14... we noted in that case: 'We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.'
textreferences: Later, in Case No. 68-7... we noted that: 'We do not deal in this case with the question of whether personal misconduct separate and apart from the performance of professional services would be a violation of the code.'
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.471700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Purposive Scope Expansive Interpretation
type: EthicsCodePurposiveScopeExpansiveInterpretationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Purposive Scope Expansive Interpretation Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to interpret the scope of the Code of Ethics by reference to its foundational purpose — public confidence in professional integrity — rather than by a narrow textual reading limited to conduct during professional services.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — purposive interpretation used to extend code jurisdiction to personal misconduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Articulating the counter-argument to the narrow interpretation: 'the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior.'
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: It may be argued that a code of ethics of any profession is only intended to relate to conduct which prejudices or may tend to prejudice the performance of professional services
textreferences: But counter to this approach should be a recognition that the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior.
textreferences: It may be argued that a code of ethics of any profession is only intended to relate to conduct which prejudices or may tend to prejudice the performance of professional services
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.470581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Reserved Question Definitive Resolution
type: ReservedJurisdictionalQuestionDefinitiveResolutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Reserved Jurisdictional Question Definitive Resolution Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the capability to recognize that the question of personal misconduct jurisdiction had been reserved in Cases 62-14 and 68-7, and to definitively resolve it in Case 72-6 when squarely presented.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — personal misconduct jurisdiction question definitively resolved after being reserved in Cases 62-14 and 68-7
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Issuing the ruling 'We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics' after identifying the accumulated reservations from prior cases.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.470437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 State Registration Law Analogue Recognition
type: StateEngineeringRegistrationLawPersonalMisconductDisciplineAuthorityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: State Engineering Registration Law Personal Misconduct Discipline Authority Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to recognize and invoke the dual statutory bases of state registration board disciplinary authority — felony/moral turpitude conviction versus misconduct in practice — as legal analogue supporting the expansive interpretation of the ethics code's scope.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — state registration law framework invoked to support ethics code expansive scope interpretation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Citing state registration law: 'The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude... intended to go beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering.'
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: This broad authority, including suspension or revocation of license, is intended to go beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering because another part of the state board authority provides for reprimand, suspension or revocation of license for 'misconduct in the practice of his profession.'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.471177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Previously Reserved Question Definitive Resolution Binding Precedent
type: PreviouslyReservedEthicsQuestionDefinitiveResolutionBindingPrecedentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER had previously reserved the question of personal misconduct jurisdiction in two prior cases and was now compelled to resolve it definitively given the facts of Engineer A and Engineer B.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: Previously Reserved Ethics Question Definitive Resolution Binding Precedent Constraint
constraintstatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was constrained to definitively resolve the previously reserved question of whether personal criminal misconduct outside engineering practice falls within the Code's jurisdiction, having explicitly reserved that question in BER Cases 62-14 and 68-7, and to apply that definitive resolution as binding precedent going forward.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Cases 62-14, 68-7, 75-5; NSPE procedural ethics authority
sourcetext: BER_Case_62-14
temporalscope: From the issuance of BER Case 75-5 forward
textreferences: BER_Case_62-14
textreferences: BER_Case_68-7
textreferences: NSPE BER Previously Reserved Question Compelled Resolution
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.465010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:04:42.067528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:04:42.067528+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing both Example 1 and Example 2
usedincontext: Primary normative authority for determining whether personal criminal misconduct (theft, fraud, tax evasion) by a licensed engineer constitutes a violation of professional ethics obligations, even when the conduct is unrelated to direct engineering practice
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.455232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Preamble
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Preamble
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the preamble enjoins the engineer'. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . . .'
textreferences: the preamble enjoins the engineer'. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . . .'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited to establish the engineer's obligation to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession, extending ethical obligations beyond purely technical practice
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.458622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_1
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: § 1 of the code speaks to '. . . the highest standards of integrity . . .'
textreferences: Section 1—'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
textreferences: § 1 of the code speaks to '. . . the highest standards of integrity . . .'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited to establish that the highest standards of integrity apply broadly to engineer conduct, supporting extension of code coverage to personal misconduct
version: Historical (formerly Section 1: 'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity...')
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.458368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_3
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics, and which is now §3 of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: Section 3—'The Engineer will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession.'
textreferences: the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics, and which is now §3 of the Code of Ethics
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as the operative code provision governing personal misconduct that may discredit or dishonor the profession, including conduct unrelated to direct engineering practice
version: Historical (formerly Section 3: 'The Engineer will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession.')
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.458095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Jurisdiction Exercise Engineer A
type: ProfessionalSocietyCriminalConvictionDisciplinaryJurisdictionExerciseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Society Criminal Conviction Disciplinary Jurisdiction Exercise Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was required to correctly identify and exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer A based on his theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probationary engineering employment
casecontext: NSPE Board of Ethical Review exercised jurisdiction over Engineer A's personal criminal misconduct, applying Code provisions extending to personal conduct reflecting on character and professional integrity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Assertion of NSPE disciplinary authority over personal dishonesty-based criminal conduct not directly related to engineering practice
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.466435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Jurisdiction Exercise Engineer B
type: ProfessionalSocietyCriminalConvictionDisciplinaryJurisdictionExerciseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Society Criminal Conviction Disciplinary Jurisdiction Exercise Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was required to correctly identify and exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer B based on his tax fraud conviction and public identification as an engineer
casecontext: NSPE Board of Ethical Review exercised jurisdiction over Engineer B's personal tax fraud conviction, recognizing that public identification as an engineer in criminal proceedings amplified the profession-wide reputational harm
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Assertion of NSPE disciplinary authority over personal tax fraud conviction, particularly given the public identification of Engineer B as an engineer in media accounts
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Ethics Committee
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.466601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Reserves Judgment 1962
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: institutional ethics authority
foreseen unintended effects: Leaving an important ethical question unresolved for future cases
foreseen unintended effects: Potential inconsistency in how similar cases might be handled in the interim
fulfills obligation text: Obligation of judicial caution, avoiding overbroad rulings without sufficient factual basis
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to resolve the presented case on its specific facts
guided by principle text: Caution and deliberateness in ethical rulemaking
guided by principle text: Limiting holdings to facts presented
guided by principle text: Protecting individual engineers from overbroad professional discipline
has agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
has mental state: deliberate and cautious
intended outcome: Resolve the immediate case narrowly without prematurely establishing a broader precedent on personal misconduct unrelated to professional practice
raises obligation text: Potential obligation to provide comprehensive ethical guidance to the profession on foreseeable related issues
requires capability text: Ethical interpretation
requires capability text: Institutional judgment
requires capability text: Legal and professional standards analysis
temporal marker: 1962, Case No. 62-14
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: In Case No. 62-14, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review deliberately chose not to rule on whether personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice violates the Code of Ethics, limiting its holding to the engineering-related conduct at issue in that case.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Reserves Judgment 1962 → Prior Cases Create Precedent Gap
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In Case No. 62-14, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review deliberately chose not to rule on whether personal misconduct falls within engineering ethics jurisdiction; the 1962 and 1968 NSPE ethics cases, by deliberately reserving judgment on personal misconduct, create a gap in ethical precedent
cause: NSPE Reserves Judgment 1962
counterfactual: Had either the 1962 or 1968 Board ruled definitively on personal misconduct, a binding precedent would have existed and the current case would have had clear guidance to apply
effect: Prior Cases Create Precedent Gap
necessary factors: Absence of any intervening ruling filling the gap between 1962 and the current case
necessary factors: NSPE Board's deliberate institutional decision to reserve judgment in 1962
necessary factors: Subsequent 1968 decision also reserving judgment rather than resolving the question
necessary factors: The current case requiring resolution of the personal misconduct question
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (1962 and 1968 Boards)
sufficient factors: 1962 reserved judgment + 1968 reserved judgment + no intervening resolution = precedent gap requiring fresh determination in current case
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Reserves Judgment 1968
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: institutional ethics authority
foreseen unintended effects: Accumulating pressure to resolve the question in a future case
foreseen unintended effects: Continued absence of clear guidance on personal misconduct
foreseen unintended effects: Risk that engineers or the public remain uncertain about the Code's scope
fulfills obligation text: Obligation of judicial caution, avoiding overbroad rulings
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to resolve the presented case on its specific facts
fulfills obligation text: Transparency obligation, explicitly flagging the reserved question again
guided by principle text: Caution and deliberateness in ethical rulemaking
guided by principle text: Limiting holdings to facts presented
guided by principle text: Protecting individual engineers from overbroad professional discipline
has agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
has mental state: deliberate and cautious
intended outcome: Resolve the intoxication-during-duty case on its specific facts without extending the holding to purely personal misconduct unrelated to professional service delivery
raises obligation text: Potential obligation to provide timely and comprehensive ethical guidance given the question had already been reserved six years prior
requires capability text: Ethical interpretation
requires capability text: Institutional judgment
requires capability text: Legal and professional standards analysis
temporal marker: 1968, Case No. 68-7
temporal sequence: 2
within competence: true
comment: In Case No. 68-7, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review again deliberately declined to rule on whether personal misconduct separate from professional services violates the Code of Ethics, once more explicitly reserving that question for a future case.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Rules Personal Misconduct Covered
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: institutional ethics authority
foreseen unintended effects: Need for professional societies to exercise careful judgment in applying this ruling to avoid disciplining purely private habits or conduct
foreseen unintended effects: Potential chilling effect on engineers' personal autonomy
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of overreach into purely personal conduct if the ruling is applied too broadly
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to align professional disciplinary authority with parallel state registration law standards
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to finally resolve a question deliberately reserved across multiple prior cases
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect public confidence in the engineering profession
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to provide clear and comprehensive ethical guidance to the profession
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession per NSPE Preamble
guided by principle text: Alignment with state registration law standards for felony and moral turpitude convictions
guided by principle text: Caution against overreach into purely personal conduct
guided by principle text: NSPE Code §1, highest standards of integrity
guided by principle text: NSPE Code §3, avoid conduct discrediting the honor and dignity of the profession
guided by principle text: NSPE Preamble, uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession
guided by principle text: Public trust and confidence in the engineering profession
has agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
has mental state: deliberate and considered
intended outcome: Establish a clear, authoritative precedent that personal misconduct involving criminal conduct of moral turpitude falls within the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics, thereby protecting public confidence in the engineering profession and enabling professional societies to act on such findings
requires capability text: Balancing competing policy considerations
requires capability text: Ethical interpretation and precedent-setting
requires capability text: Institutional judgment
requires capability text: Legal and professional standards analysis
temporal marker: Current case decision, after two prior reservations in 1962 and 1968
temporal sequence: 13
within competence: true
comment: In the current case, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review made the deliberate institutional decision to finally resolve the previously reserved question, ruling that personal misconduct of the kind exhibited by Engineers A and B is subject to the NSPE Code of Ethics and may be addressed by professional disciplinary action in addition to legal consequences.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms on Personal Misconduct and Engineering Ethics
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:04:42.067528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:04:42.067528+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution. During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution. During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service. The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A (theft, fraudulent checks) and Engineer B (fraudulent tax returns)
usedincontext: Establishes that personal criminal misconduct — including theft, fraud, and tax evasion — by a licensed engineer falls within the scope of professional ethics obligations because such conduct undermines public confidence in the integrity and honesty of the profession, even when not directly related to engineering practice
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.455437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Personal_Misconduct_Ethics_Standard_Instance
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norm: Personal Misconduct as Code of Ethics Violation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Standard
sourcetext: personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
textreferences: personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
textreferences: when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: The Board articulates and adopts the standard that personal misconduct determined by proper legal authority to be beyond socially sanctioned behavior falls within the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics, enabling professional societies to act to protect the profession's reputation
version: Established in this case decision
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.459206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Prior Cases Create Precedent Gap
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Institutional_Clarity_Obligation
activates constraint: Precedent_Gap_Constraint
causes state change: A zone of ethical uncertainty exists within the profession; engineers and licensing boards lack clear guidance on whether personal misconduct triggers Code obligations; the current case is forced to resolve what prior cases avoided
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Current_Case_Must_Address_Gap
creates obligation: NSPE_Obligated_To_Eventually_Resolve_Question
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: 1962 through the present case (persistent state)
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: low
comment: The 1962 and 1968 NSPE ethics cases, by deliberately reserving judgment on personal misconduct, created an unresolved gap in the Code's scope that persisted for years. This gap is an ongoing state, not a decision in the current case, that shapes the ethical landscape the current case must navigate.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Prior Cases Create Precedent Gap → NSPE Rules Personal Misconduct Covered
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The 1962 and 1968 NSPE ethics cases, by deliberately reserving judgment on personal misconduct, create a gap in ethical precedent that the current Board must now fill; in the current case, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review made the deliberate institutional decision to rule that personal misconduct falls within the scope of engineering ethics
cause: Prior Cases Create Precedent Gap
counterfactual: Had prior Boards resolved the question definitively, the current Board would have applied existing precedent rather than making a new institutional determination; the ruling might have been different depending on the direction of prior precedent
effect: NSPE Rules Personal Misconduct Covered
necessary factors: Current case presenting facts of personal misconduct by licensed engineers
necessary factors: Existence of the precedent gap requiring fresh determination
necessary factors: NSPE Board's institutional authority and willingness to resolve the open question
necessary factors: Sufficient factual basis in Engineers A and B's conduct to ground the ruling
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (current case)
sufficient factors: Precedent gap + compelling current case facts + Board institutional decision to resolve the question = definitive ruling that personal misconduct is covered
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Probation Fraud Compounds Record
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Heightened_Professional_Discipline_Constraint
activates constraint: Pattern_Of_Misconduct_Constraint
activates constraint: Probation_Violation_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A's misconduct is no longer an isolated incident but a demonstrated pattern; any presumption of rehabilitation is eliminated; professional and legal consequences are compounded; the case for Code of Ethics application becomes substantially stronger
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Licensing_Board_Must_Act_On_Pattern_Evidence
creates obligation: NSPE_Must_Apply_Code_To_Repeated_Personal_Misconduct
creates obligation: Probation_Authority_Must_Respond_To_Violation
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During probation period, after jail sentence served
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A's commission of check fraud during the probation period results in a compounded criminal record, a second category of offense layered on top of the first. This outcome worsens Engineer A's legal and professional standing and eliminates any mitigating narrative of isolated lapse.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Is personal misconduct of the types described a violation of the Code of Ethics?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.791877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Should Engineer A have been obligated to disclose his criminal conviction and probationary status to his new employer before accepting engineering employment, and does failure to do so constitute a separate, independent ethics violation beyond the underlying criminal conduct?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.791935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the fact that Engineer B's engineering identity was publicly linked to his criminal conviction in newspaper accounts create a heightened or distinct ethics violation compared to a conviction that was never publicly associated with his profession, or is the underlying conviction alone sufficient to trigger Code jurisdiction regardless of public exposure?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.791989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what threshold of personal misconduct—misdemeanor, felony, moral turpitude, or pattern of conduct—should the NSPE Code of Ethics be triggered, and does the Board's ruling in Case 72-6 establish a clear, administrable standard or leave an ambiguous zone of minor personal wrongdoing ungoverned?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the aggravated nature of Engineer A's repeated criminal conduct during supervised probation while employed as an engineer warrant a qualitatively different or more severe disciplinary response than a single, isolated conviction, and should the Board have addressed proportionality of sanctions explicitly?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the 'Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation' principle—which cautions against professional societies overreaching into purely personal conduct—conflict with the 'Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon' that rejects a narrow limitation of the Code to professional services only, and how should the Board reconcile these competing principles to avoid both under-enforcement and overreach?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the 'Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate' principle—which grounds professional discipline on prior criminal conviction—conflict with the 'Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard' in cases where an engineer's dishonest conduct has not yet resulted in criminal charges, potentially creating an arbitrary distinction between equally dishonest engineers based solely on prosecutorial discretion?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the 'Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm' principle applied to Engineer B—which emphasizes the profession's reputational injury from public exposure—conflict with the 'Honesty Invoked as Core Professional Virtue' principle applied to both engineers, insofar as the former grounds discipline in external perception while the latter grounds it in intrinsic character, potentially producing inconsistent outcomes depending on media coverage rather than actual moral culpability?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the 'Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation' invoked for Cases 62-14 and 68-7 conflict with the 'Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction' principles applied in Case 72-6, in that the Board's earlier decisions to reserve judgment may have created a legitimate reliance interest or implied permission for engineers to believe personal misconduct outside engineering practice was beyond Code reach—and if so, does retroactive application of the expanded jurisdiction raise fairness concerns?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill his duty of honesty and transparency when he accepted employment during probation without disclosing his prior criminal conviction for theft, and does the categorical imperative demand that engineers treat personal integrity as a universal professional obligation regardless of whether the misconduct occurred within engineering practice?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the public harm caused by an engineer's criminal convictions for dishonesty-based offenses — including erosion of public trust in the engineering profession and reputational damage amplified by newspaper identification — justify extending the NSPE Code's disciplinary reach beyond conduct directly related to engineering services?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's pattern of committing fraudulent acts — first theft, then fraudulent check writing during supervised probation while employed as an engineer — demonstrate a settled disposition of dishonesty that is fundamentally incompatible with the character traits of honesty, integrity, and honor that the NSPE Code identifies as constitutive of professional engineering identity?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent tax returns — a deliberate act of deception directed at a public institution — reveal a character deficiency in honesty and civic integrity that is irreconcilable with the professional virtues the NSPE Code demands, even though the fraud was entirely unrelated to engineering services rendered to clients?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reached the same conclusion regarding Engineer A if he had voluntarily disclosed his theft conviction and probationary status to his new employer before accepting employment, and would such proactive transparency have mitigated — or entirely negated — the ethical violation, given that the subsequent fraudulent check writing during probation constituted an independent and aggravated breach?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If the newspaper accounts of Engineer B's tax fraud conviction had not identified him as an engineer, would the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have been less inclined to assert disciplinary jurisdiction, and does the Board's reasoning in this case improperly conflate the aggravating circumstance of public professional identification with the underlying ethical question of whether personal criminal misconduct independently violates the Code?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the NSPE Board of Ethical Review had definitively resolved the personal misconduct jurisdiction question in either Case 62-14 or Case 68-7 rather than reserving judgment, would the existence of binding precedent have deterred Engineer A and Engineer B from their criminal conduct, and does the Board's prolonged doctrinal ambiguity on this question itself constitute an institutional failure with ethical implications for the profession?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.792797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Would the Board's conclusion have differed if Engineer A's fraudulent check writing during probation had been directed against his engineering employer rather than third parties — and conversely, would the outcome have changed if Engineer B's tax fraud had involved misrepresentation of engineering business income — thereby testing whether the nexus between the criminal conduct and engineering practice is a morally relevant factor that the Board's expansive 'whole-person integrity' standard improperly dismisses?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.793258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.795972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:39:05.796084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

State Engineering Registration Board Case 72-6 Felony Discipline Authority
type: StateEngineeringRegistrationLawPersonalMisconductDisciplineAuthorityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: State Engineering Registration Law Personal Misconduct Discipline Authority Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: State engineering registration boards possess the capability to recognize and exercise their statutory authority to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or crime involving moral turpitude, as a basis separate from and broader than misconduct in the practice of engineering.
casecontext: NSPE BER Case 72-6 — state registration board authority recognized as broader than practice-related misconduct authority
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Statutory authorization to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude, including suspension or revocation of license.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:17.574832+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: This broad authority, including suspension or revocation of license, is intended to go beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.471359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Jurisdiction Exercise
type: ProfessionalSocietyCriminalConvictionDisciplinaryJurisdictionExerciseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Society Criminal Conviction Disciplinary Jurisdiction Exercise Capability
capabilitystatement: State engineering registration boards are required to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over registered engineers convicted of felony offenses, including dishonesty-based crimes not directly related to engineering practice
casecontext: State engineering registration boards possess statutory authority to discipline registrants for criminal convictions, providing a parallel disciplinary track alongside NSPE ethics proceedings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Statutory authority to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony offense, applied to cases of theft, fraud, and tax evasion by licensed engineers
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:26.544852+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.466735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

State_Engineering_Registration_Law_Personal_Misconduct_Discipline
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State legislatures
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Engineering Registration Laws – Disciplinary Authority for Felony and Moral Turpitude
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:52.348283+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: This broad authority, including suspension or revocation of license, is intended to go beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited to demonstrate that state law independently authorizes registration boards to discipline engineers for any felony or crime involving moral turpitude, confirming that professional accountability extends beyond conduct directly related to engineering practice
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.459071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991096+00:00
value: Engineer A was constrained to honestly disclose his theft conviction and probationary status to the engineering firm that employed him during his probation period, at the outset of the employment relationship, rather than concealing this material integrity-relevant information.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991241+00:00
value: The collective honor of the profession and the public's confidence in it outweigh the individual engineer's claim that personal criminal misconduct is beyond the code's reach

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.989753+00:00
value: The pattern of recidivist dishonest conduct during probation, exploiting professional employment, eliminates any mitigating factors that might otherwise counsel restraint in professional discipline; the aggravated nature of the misconduct warrants serious disciplinary response

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.989934+00:00
value: The categorical nature of the incompatibility between dishonesty-based criminal conduct and professional engineering character obligations means that no balancing is required; such conduct falls squarely within the ethics code's character jurisdiction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.988613+00:00
value: The character-based nature of professional ethics obligations overrides any claim that personal criminal conduct is beyond the ethics code's reach, particularly where the conduct involves deliberate dishonesty

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.990900+00:00
value: The character-based obligations of professional engineering employment override any claim to privacy regarding criminal history that is directly relevant to the employer's assessment of the engineer's trustworthiness

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.992142+00:00
value: The character-based nature of professional ethics obligations overrides any claim that personal criminal conduct is beyond the ethics code's reach, particularly where the conduct involves deliberate dishonesty

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.990676+00:00
value: The pattern of recidivist dishonest conduct during probation, exploiting professional employment, eliminates any mitigating factors that might otherwise counsel restraint in professional discipline; the aggravated nature of the misconduct warrants serious disciplinary response

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.990543+00:00
value: The character-based nature of professional ethics obligations overrides any claim that personal criminal conduct is beyond the ethics code's reach, particularly where the conduct involves deliberate dishonesty

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991420+00:00
value: Engineer A was subject to the constraint that committing additional fraudulent check-writing while already under court-supervised probation for theft and while employed as an engineer constituted an aggravated ethics violation more serious than either the original conviction or a single isolated act of misconduct.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.990404+00:00
value: The profession's accountability obligation to the public overrides any competing consideration of leniency toward the individual engineer; the pattern of conduct warrants formal disciplinary response

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.989353+00:00
value: The public nature of the newspaper identification eliminates any privacy claim; the profession's legitimate interest in protecting its collective reputation justifies ethics code jurisdiction over publicly identified criminal conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991679+00:00
value: The public nature of the newspaper identification eliminates any privacy claim; the profession's legitimate interest in protecting its collective reputation justifies ethics code jurisdiction over publicly identified criminal conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991730+00:00
value: The collective honor of the profession and the public's confidence in it outweigh the individual engineer's claim that personal criminal misconduct is beyond the code's reach

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.990112+00:00
value: The deliberate, planned nature of tax fraud eliminates any claim that the conduct was inadvertent or situationally excusable; it reflects a character trait — willingness to deceive for personal gain — that is fundamentally incompatible with professional engineering obligations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.992305+00:00
value: The public nature of the newspaper identification eliminates any privacy claim; the profession's legitimate interest in protecting its collective reputation justifies ethics code jurisdiction over publicly identified criminal conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991603+00:00
value: The public identification of Engineer B as an engineer in connection with the conviction makes the conduct profession-implicating; the ethics code's character-based jurisdiction encompasses such publicly identified dishonest conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991551+00:00
value: The deliberate, planned nature of tax fraud eliminates any claim that the conduct was inadvertent or situationally excusable; it reflects a character trait — willingness to deceive for personal gain — that is fundamentally incompatible with professional engineering obligations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.990264+00:00
value: The public nature of the identification eliminates privacy considerations; the profession's accountability obligation to maintain public trust requires formal disciplinary engagement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.988817+00:00
value: The jurisdiction is affirmed but bounded: it applies to legally adjudicated misconduct, not purely personal habits; professional societies must be judicious

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991902+00:00
value: The previously reserved question — whether personal misconduct separate from professional services falls within ethics code jurisdiction — is now affirmatively answered: personal misconduct that brings disrepute to the profession is within the code's scope

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.989494+00:00
value: Expansive interpretation prevails based on the foundational purpose of the ethics code

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.992198+00:00
value: The jurisdiction is affirmed but bounded: it applies to legally adjudicated misconduct, not purely personal habits; professional societies must be judicious

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.992255+00:00
value: Jurisdiction is affirmed for legally adjudicated misconduct; purely personal habits remain outside disciplinary scope

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991782+00:00
value: Jurisdiction is affirmed for legally adjudicated misconduct; purely personal habits remain outside disciplinary scope

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.989182+00:00
value: Jurisdiction is affirmed for legally adjudicated misconduct; purely personal habits remain outside disciplinary scope

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991952+00:00
value: The purposivist interpretation prevails: the code's foundational purpose of maintaining public confidence requires extending jurisdiction to personal misconduct that undermines that confidence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.989626+00:00
value: The purposivist interpretation prevails: the code's foundational purpose of maintaining public confidence requires extending jurisdiction to personal misconduct that undermines that confidence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.991848+00:00
value: No conflict — the BER uses the prior reservations as the doctrinal launching point for the present resolution

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.992022+00:00
value: Engineer A's theft conviction and fraudulent check-writing during probation, though unrelated to engineering practice, fell within the jurisdiction of the NSPE Code of Ethics because personal misconduct reflecting on integrity and fitness for professional practice is subject to the Code.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:50:29.992076+00:00
value: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns, though unrelated to engineering practice, fell within the jurisdiction of the NSPE Code of Ethics because personal misconduct of this kind undermines public confidence in the profession's integrity.

reservation of judgment on personal misconduct (Case 62-14) before reservation of judgment on personal misconduct (Case 68-7)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In Case No. 62-14...we noted...we do not consider at this time...Later, in Case No. 68-7, we similarly considered a case...But again we noted...
from entity text: reservation of judgment on personal misconduct (Case 62-14)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: reservation of judgment on personal misconduct (Case 68-7)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: reservation of judgment on personal misconduct Ca
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

reservation of judgment on personal misconduct (Case 68-7) before resolution of personal misconduct question (current case)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases...We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state...
from entity text: reservation of judgment on personal misconduct (Case 68-7)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: resolution of personal misconduct question (current case)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: resolution of personal misconduct question curren
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.474883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's conviction for theft in the first degree — a paradigmatic dishonesty-based offense — is categorically incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice, because the willingness to take property b

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER invoked the NSPE Code's requirement of the highest standards of integrity and honesty as a basis for holding that criminal convictions for dishonesty-based offenses (theft, fraudulent tax returns) are incompatible with professional

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's pattern of criminal conduct — initial theft conviction followed by fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer — triggers professional accountability obligations, requiring the profession to respond

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's guilty plea to first-degree theft and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code, notwithstanding that these acts were not di

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER invoked the NSPE Code's preamble obligation to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession, and §3's prohibition on conduct likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession, as th

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's commission of fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during court-supervised probation for prior theft represents an aggravated form of professional ethics violation — the exploitation of professional employment

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's writing and cashing of fraudulent checks while employed as an engineer directly violates the professional virtue of honesty, which requires engineers to refrain from deliberate deception in all dealings, not merely those direct

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's acceptance of engineering employment during court-supervised probation for theft, without apparent disclosure of his criminal history to his new employer, and his subsequent exploitation of that employment to commit further fra

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's filing of fraudulent income tax returns directly violates the professional virtue of honesty, which requires engineers to make truthful representations in all dealings, including those with government authorities regarding pers

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — an offense involving deliberate misrepresentation to a government authority — is categorically incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering pract

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because it constitutes deliberate dishonesty that is incompatible with the character requirements of professional

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in connection with his tax fraud conviction triggers professional accountability obligations, because the public association of engineering with fraudulent conduct requires the profession to

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction creates a profession-implicating dimension to his personal criminal conduct, because the public association of engineering with fraudulent c

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER grounded its disciplinary authority over Engineer A and Engineer B in the fact that their misconduct had been officially determined by proper legal authority — criminal courts — to be beyond the pale of socially sanctioned cond

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER rejected the narrow argument that ethics codes apply only to conduct prejudicing professional services performance, applying an expansive interpretation that encompasses any conduct undermining public confidence in professional inte

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER resolved the previously reserved jurisdiction question by appeal to the foundational purpose of professional ethics codes: to regulate practitioners so that the public may have confidence in their integrity, honesty, and decorous be

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER definitively resolved the previously reserved question from Cases 62-14 and 68-7, holding that personal misconduct of the kind shown in this case (criminal convictions for theft and fraudulent tax returns) is subject to the Cod

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: While affirming jurisdiction over personal misconduct, the BER expressly cautioned that professional societies must be careful and judicious and must not undertake to control purely personal habits or conduct — the disciplinary reach extend

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER carefully distinguished Cases 62-14 and 68-7 — where the reserved question of personal misconduct jurisdiction was explicitly noted but not decided — from the present case, which directly raised and resolved that reserved question,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER carefully distinguished Cases 62-14 and 68-7 — where the reserved question of personal misconduct jurisdiction was explicitly noted but not decided — from the present case, which directly raised and resolved that reserved question,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER carefully distinguished Cases 62-14 and 68-7 — where the reserved question of personal misconduct jurisdiction was explicitly noted but not decided — from the present case, which directly raised and resolved that reserved question,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's conviction for theft in the first degree — a paradigmatic dishonesty-based offense — is categorically incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice, because the willingness to take property b

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER invoked the NSPE Code's requirement of the highest standards of integrity and honesty as a basis for holding that criminal convictions for dishonesty-based offenses (theft, fraudulent tax returns) are incompatible with professional

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — an offense involving deliberate misrepresentation to a government authority — is categorically incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering pract

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's filing of fraudulent income tax returns directly violates the professional virtue of honesty, which requires engineers to make truthful representations in all dealings, including those with government authorities regarding pers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER invoked the NSPE Code's preamble obligation to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession, and §3's prohibition on conduct likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession, as th

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER invoked the NSPE Code's preamble obligation to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession, and §3's prohibition on conduct likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession, as th

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's pattern of criminal conduct — initial theft conviction followed by fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer — triggers professional accountability obligations, requiring the profession to respond

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in connection with his tax fraud conviction triggers professional accountability obligations, because the public association of engineering with fraudulent conduct requires the profession to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction creates a profession-implicating dimension to his personal criminal conduct, because the public association of engineering with fraudulent c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction creates a profession-implicating dimension to his personal criminal conduct, because the public association of engineering with fraudulent c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER grounded its disciplinary authority over Engineer A and Engineer B in the fact that their misconduct had been officially determined by proper legal authority — criminal courts — to be beyond the pale of socially sanctioned cond

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER grounded its disciplinary authority over Engineer A and Engineer B in the fact that their misconduct had been officially determined by proper legal authority — criminal courts — to be beyond the pale of socially sanctioned cond

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's guilty plea to first-degree theft and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code, notwithstanding that these acts were not di

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because it constitutes deliberate dishonesty that is incompatible with the character requirements of professional

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER rejected the narrow argument that ethics codes apply only to conduct prejudicing professional services performance, applying an expansive interpretation that encompasses any conduct undermining public confidence in professional inte

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER definitively resolved the previously reserved question from Cases 62-14 and 68-7, holding that personal misconduct of the kind shown in this case (criminal convictions for theft and fraudulent tax returns) is subject to the Cod

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER resolved the previously reserved jurisdiction question by appeal to the foundational purpose of professional ethics codes: to regulate practitioners so that the public may have confidence in their integrity, honesty, and decorous be

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: While affirming jurisdiction over personal misconduct, the BER expressly cautioned that professional societies must be careful and judicious and must not undertake to control purely personal habits or conduct — the disciplinary reach extend

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER carefully distinguished Cases 62-14 and 68-7 — where the reserved question of personal misconduct jurisdiction was explicitly noted but not decided — from the present case, which directly raised and resolved that reserved question,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's commission of fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during court-supervised probation for prior theft represents an aggravated form of professional ethics violation — the exploitation of professional employment

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's acceptance of engineering employment during court-supervised probation for theft, without apparent disclosure of his criminal history to his new employer, and his subsequent exploitation of that employment to commit further fra

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's acceptance of engineering employment during court-supervised probation for theft, without apparent disclosure of his criminal history to his new employer, and his subsequent exploitation of that employment to commit further fra

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's writing and cashing of fraudulent checks while employed as an engineer directly violates the professional virtue of honesty, which requires engineers to refrain from deliberate deception in all dealings, not merely those direct

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's guilty plea to first-degree theft and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code, notwithstanding that these acts were not di

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because it constitutes deliberate dishonesty that is incompatible with the character requirements of professional

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to submit to professional disciplinary review upon his conviction for first-degree theft — a paradigmatic dishonesty-based offense — recognizing that such conviction is categorically incompatible with the character

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the engineering profession through his personal conduct, and violated this obligation by pleading guilty to theft in the first degree and subsequently committing fraudu

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that his public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction created a profession-implicating dimension to his personal misconduct, triggering professional disciplinar

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that his conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — though not directly related to engineering practice — fell within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because it reflected on

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to recognize that Engineer A's theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probationary engineering employment fell within the ethics code's jurisdiction, and to exercise di

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to recognize that Engineer B's tax fraud conviction — particularly given his public identification as an engineer — fell within the ethics code's jurisdiction, and to exercise disciplinary auth

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER was obligated to ground its disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer A in the prior legal adjudication — guilty plea to theft in the first degree and subsequent criminal conduct during probation — rather than independently deter

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER was obligated to ground its disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer B in the prior legal adjudication — conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — rather than independently determining the wrongfulness of Engineer B'

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER was obligated to definitively resolve the previously twice-reserved question of whether personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice falls within the ethics code, and fulfilled this obligation by issuing a clear holdin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER was obligated to recognize and definitively state that personal misconduct of the kind shown by Engineer A and Engineer B — criminal convictions for dishonesty-based offenses — falls within the jurisdiction of the NSPE Code of

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER was obligated to apply the ethics code in a manner consistent with its foundational purpose of ensuring public confidence in the profession's integrity — and fulfilled this obligation by rejecting the narrow 'professional servi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE BER was obligated to exercise — and to instruct other professional societies to exercise — careful and judicious restraint in disciplining personal conduct unrelated to professional services, limiting disciplinary action to conduct

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing — though not directly related to engineering practice — fell within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because they reflec

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: State engineering registration boards are obligated to recognize and exercise their statutory authority to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude — authority that extends beyond engineer

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during probation — beyond its direct harm — caused grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers collectively, and that complia

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that committing fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during court-supervised probation for prior theft constituted an aggravated ethics violation — exploiting the professional trust ex

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to honestly disclose his criminal conviction for theft in the first degree and his status as a court-supervised probationer when accepting engineering employment, and violated this obligation by accepting employment

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to honestly disclose his theft conviction and probationary status to the engineering firm that employed him during his probation period, recognizing that accepting engineering employment without such disclosure cons

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to submit to professional disciplinary review upon his conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — an offense involving deliberate misrepresentation to a government authority — recognizing that such convic

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the engineering profession through his personal conduct, and violated this obligation by filing fraudulent income tax returns and being publicly identified in newspaper

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that his public identification as an engineer in connection with his tax fraud conviction caused damage to the image and interests of all engineers collectively, and that compliance with professional ho

Engineer A Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A pleaded guilty to first-degree theft, was placed on probation, and then committed additional fraud (fraudulent checks) while employed as an engineer during probation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's theft conviction and fraudulent check-writing during probation, though unrelated to engineering practice, fell within the jurisdiction of the NSPE Code of Ethics because personal misconduct reflecting on integrity and fitness for professional practice is subject to the Code.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I, III; BER Case 75-5; BER Case 62-14 (prior precedent)
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
temporalscope: From the time of conviction through the period of probationary employment
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
textreferences: while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.464146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Probationary Status Employment Honest Disclosure
type: Employer-EmployeeTrustFoundationDisclosureTimingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted employment as an engineer during his court-supervised probation for theft without disclosing his probationary status to the employing firm.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Disclosure Timing Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to honestly disclose his theft conviction and probationary status to the engineering firm that employed him during his probation period, at the outset of the employment relationship, rather than concealing this material integrity-relevant information.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III; BER Case 75-5
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
temporalscope: At the time of accepting employment during the probationary period
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.464439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Repeated Criminal Conduct During Probation Aggravated Violation Constraint Instance
type: RepeatedCriminalDishonestyDuringProfessionalEmploymentAggravatedViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A committed fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during court-supervised probation for first-degree theft, creating a pattern of repeated dishonest conduct during professional employment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Repeated Criminal Dishonesty During Professional Employment Aggravated Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was subject to the constraint that committing additional fraudulent check-writing while already under court-supervised probation for theft and while employed as an engineer constituted an aggravated ethics violation more serious than either the original conviction or a single isolated act of misconduct.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:19:24.944612+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §1, §3, Preamble; BER Case 72-6
sourcetext: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's period of court-supervised probation and engineering employment
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.473392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns, and newspaper accounts publicly identified him as an engineer.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns, though unrelated to engineering practice, fell within the jurisdiction of the NSPE Code of Ethics because personal misconduct of this kind undermines public confidence in the profession's integrity.
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:12:11.302370+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I, III; BER Case 75-5
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns
temporalscope: From the time of conviction and public reporting
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.464286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer in Case 62-14 Patent Office Disbarment
type: PersonalMisconductDisciplinedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation Invoked for Cases 62-14 and 68-7
attributes: {'misconduct_type': 'Advertising to solicit patent business in violation of Patent Office rules', 'adjudicating_authority': 'United States Patent Office', 'code_section_implicated': 'Section 3 of NSPE Code of Ethics (formerly Canons of Ethics)', 'relation_to_practice': 'Related to engineering practice (patent work)'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer was disbarred by the United States Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business in violation of Patent Office rules; NSPE held this violated the then-prevailing Canons of Ethics (now §3 of the Code of Ethics). Cited as precedent for the principle that professional code applies to conduct related to engineering practice.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'precedent_for', 'target': 'Engineer Subject to Personal Misconduct Discipline'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_discipline', 'target': 'NSPE Professional Society Disciplinary Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Personal Misconduct Disciplined Engineer
sourcetext: In Case No. 62-14, dealing with the disbarment of an engineer by the United States Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business in violation of the rules of the Patent Office, we held that the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics
textreferences: In Case No. 62-14, dealing with the disbarment of an engineer by the United States Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business in violation of the rules of the Patent Office, we held that the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.459369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer in Case 68-7 Intoxication Discharge
type: PersonalMisconductDisciplinedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation Invoked for Cases 62-14 and 68-7
attributes: {'misconduct_type': 'Intoxication while in performance of engineering duties', 'adjudicating_authority': 'Employer (discharge); NSPE reserved broader question', 'code_section_implicated': 'NSPE Code of Ethics (question reserved at the time)', 'relation_to_practice': 'Occurred during performance of professional duties but characterized as personal misconduct'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer was discharged by his employer for intoxication while in the performance of his duties. Cited as precedent where NSPE reserved the question of whether personal misconduct separate from professional services would violate the code.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'discharged_by', 'target': 'Engineering Employer'}
relationships: {'type': 'precedent_for', 'target': 'Engineer Subject to Personal Misconduct Discipline'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Personal Misconduct Disciplined Engineer
sourcetext: in Case No. 68-7, we similarly considered a case in which an engineer was discharged by his employer for intoxication while in the performance of his duties
textreferences: We do not deal in this case with the question of whether personal misconduct separate and apart from the performance of professional services would be a violation of the code
textreferences: in Case No. 68-7, we similarly considered a case in which an engineer was discharged by his employer for intoxication while in the performance of his duties
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.459505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
type: ProfessionalSocietyDisciplinaryAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: State Registration Board Case 72-6 Felony Moral Turpitude Discipline Authority Recognition
attributes: {'institution_type': 'State government regulatory board', 'jurisdiction': 'Licensed professional engineers within the state', 'authority_basis': 'State engineering registration laws', 'scope_of_authority': 'Felony conviction; crime involving moral turpitude; misconduct in practice of profession', 'sanctions_available': 'Reprimand, suspension, revocation of license'}
caseinvolvement: State engineering registration boards are authorized under state engineering registration laws to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude, with broad authority including suspension or revocation of license — authority that extends beyond transgressions related to engineering practice.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'coordinates_with', 'target': 'NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'disciplines', 'target': 'Personal Misconduct Disciplined Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Professional Society Disciplinary Authority
sourcetext: state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude
textreferences: This broad authority, including suspension or revocation of license, is intended to go beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering
textreferences: another part of the state board authority provides for reprimand, suspension or revocation of license for 'misconduct in the practice of his profession'
textreferences: state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.459815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Whole-Person Integrity Scrutiny State
type: Whole-PersonIntegrityStandardActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial theft conviction through subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probation
affectedparties: Employer firm
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Licensing board
affectedparties: Professional society
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
stateclass: Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation State
subject: Engineer A's non-engineering criminal conduct and its ethical implications for professional standing
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
triggeringevent: Criminal conviction for theft followed by additional fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during probation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.456950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Tax Fraud Conviction State
type: AdjudicatedWrongdoingDisclosureObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From conviction through post-conviction period
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: IRS
affectedparties: Licensing board
affectedparties: Professional society
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service
stateclass: Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation State
subject: Engineer B's criminal conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service
triggeringevent: Engineer B was tried and convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the IRS
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.457379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Whole-Person Integrity Scrutiny State
type: Whole-PersonIntegrityStandardActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From conviction onward
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Licensing board
affectedparties: Professional society
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service
stateclass: Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation State
subject: Engineer B's non-engineering criminal conduct (tax fraud) and its ethical implications for professional standing
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service
triggeringevent: Criminal conviction for tax fraud, a non-engineering crime reflecting on personal honesty and integrity
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.457672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer Personal Criminal Misconduct Code Jurisdiction Question
type: PersonalMisconductOutsideEngineeringPracticeSubjecttoCodeJurisdictionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time of the engineer's criminal convictions through the NSPE Board of Ethical Review's definitive ruling in this case
affectedparties: Engineering profession generally
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: Public relying on professional integrity
affectedparties: The engineer subject to review
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
stateclass: Personal Misconduct Outside Engineering Practice Subject to Code Jurisdiction State
subject: The engineer subject to NSPE ethics review for criminal conduct (check fraud, probation violations) unrelated to engineering practice
terminatedby: NSPE BER's definitive ruling that personal misconduct adjudicated by proper legal authority is subject to the Code of Ethics
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases
textreferences: personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
triggeringevent: Engineer's criminal convictions and probation violations, combined with the NSPE BER being directly confronted with the previously reserved question of whether personal misconduct outside engineering practice is subject to the Code
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.460001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer Whole-Person Integrity Standard Application
type: Whole-PersonIntegrityStandardActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the engineer's criminal convictions through the BER's ruling applying the whole-person integrity standard
affectedparties: Engineering profession
affectedparties: NSPE
affectedparties: The engineer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: §1 of the code speaks to '...the highest standards of integrity...'
stateclass: Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation State
subject: The engineer whose criminal conduct outside engineering practice is evaluated under the NSPE Code's integrity and honor provisions
terminatedby: BER ruling applying the Code to the engineer's personal misconduct
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession
textreferences: the preamble enjoins the engineer '...to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession...'
textreferences: §1 of the code speaks to '...the highest standards of integrity...'
triggeringevent: Engineer's criminal convictions and the NSPE Code's provisions requiring the highest standards of integrity and upholding the honor and dignity of the profession
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.460473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Previously Reserved Question Compelled Resolution
type: PreviouslyReservedEthicalQuestionDefinitivelyResolvedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Case No. 62-14 (first reservation) through Case No. 68-7 (second reservation) until the present case requiring definitive resolution
affectedparties: Engineering profession
affectedparties: Future cases citing this precedent
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice
stateclass: Previously Reserved Ethical Question Definitively Resolved State
subject: NSPE Board of Ethical Review's doctrinal position on personal misconduct outside engineering practice
terminatedby: NSPE BER's definitive ruling that personal misconduct adjudicated by legal authority is subject to the Code of Ethics
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases
textreferences: We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice
textreferences: We do not deal in this case with the question of whether personal misconduct separate and apart from the performance of professional services would be a violation of the code
triggeringevent: Present case directly raising the question previously reserved in Cases 62-14 and 68-7, making further deferral impossible
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.460153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Disciplinary Jurisdiction Over Engineer Criminal Misconduct
type: ProfessionalSocietyDisciplinaryJurisdictionOverLegally-AdjudicatedPersonalMisconductState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time NSPE became aware of the engineer's criminal convictions through the BER's ruling establishing jurisdiction
affectedparties: Engineering profession
affectedparties: NSPE
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: The engineer subject to review
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:37.363018+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
stateclass: Professional Society Disciplinary Jurisdiction Over Legally-Adjudicated Personal Misconduct State
subject: NSPE's authority and obligation to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over the engineer's criminal convictions
terminatedby: NSPE BER ruling confirming jurisdiction and authorizing disciplinary action under the Code
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude
textreferences: professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services
textreferences: the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
triggeringevent: Engineer's criminal convictions adjudicated by proper legal authority, combined with the convictions' capacity to bring disrepute to the engineering profession
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.460324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

State Registration Board Case 72-6 Felony Moral Turpitude Discipline Authority Recognition
type: StateEngineeringRegistrationLawPersonalMisconductDisciplineAuthorityRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 72-6: The BER invoked state engineering registration laws as parallel authority supporting the conclusion that personal misconduct falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of professional bodies, noting that such laws authorize discipline for felony convictions and crimes of moral turpitude beyond engineering-practice misconduct.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State engineering registration boards
obligationclass: State Engineering Registration Law Personal Misconduct Discipline Authority Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: State engineering registration boards are obligated to recognize and exercise their statutory authority to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude — authority that extends beyond engineering-practice-related misconduct — and to apply this authority to engineers convicted of dishonesty-based offenses such as theft and tax fraud.
sourcetext: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
temporalscope: Upon conviction of a registrant for a felony or crime involving moral turpitude
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
textreferences: This broad authority, including suspension or revocation of license, is intended to go beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.469608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Fraudulent Check Writing
type: EngineeringProfessionImageNon-CompromiseThroughEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A committed fraud while employed as an engineer during probation, directly associating engineering employment with criminal dishonest conduct.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Pattern of Criminal Conduct
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Ethics Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during probation — beyond its direct harm — caused grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers collectively, and that compliance with professional honesty standards was required not only for personal integrity but to preserve the public trust upon which the engineering profession depends.
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
temporalscope: During the period of probationary engineering employment
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.463783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Legal Adjudication Predicate Engineer A Theft Fraud
type: LegalAdjudicationPredicateRequirementforProfessionalSocietyPersonalMisconductDisciplineObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 72-6: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree and committed fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer. The BER grounded its jurisdiction in these legally adjudicated facts.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate Invoked for Engineer A and Engineer B Discipline
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Legal Adjudication Predicate Requirement for Professional Society Personal Misconduct Discipline Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE BER was obligated to ground its disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer A in the prior legal adjudication — guilty plea to theft in the first degree and subsequent criminal conduct during probation — rather than independently determining the wrongfulness of Engineer A's personal conduct, taking note of the official legal findings as the predicate for professional disciplinary action.
sourcetext: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
temporalscope: Upon BER's consideration of Engineer A's case
textreferences: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.468890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Legal Adjudication Predicate Engineer B Tax Fraud
type: LegalAdjudicationPredicateRequirementforProfessionalSocietyPersonalMisconductDisciplineObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Case 72-6: Engineer B was charged, tried, and convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns and was publicly identified in newspaper accounts as an engineer. The BER grounded its jurisdiction in the legal conviction.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate Invoked for Engineer A and Engineer B Discipline
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Legal Adjudication Predicate Requirement for Professional Society Personal Misconduct Discipline Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE BER was obligated to ground its disciplinary jurisdiction over Engineer B in the prior legal adjudication — conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — rather than independently determining the wrongfulness of Engineer B's personal conduct, taking note of the official legal conviction as the predicate for professional disciplinary action.
sourcetext: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
temporalscope: Upon BER's consideration of Engineer B's case
textreferences: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.469025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Probationary Status Employed Engineer
type: ProbationaryStatusEmployedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Honesty Professional Virtue Violated by Engineer A Fraudulent Check Writing
adheres to principle: Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard Applied to Engineer A Employment During Probation
has obligation: Engineer A Case 72-6 Criminal Conviction Employment Honest Disclosure Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure
attributes: {'probation_duration': 'Five years supervised probation', 'employer': 'Unnamed engineering firm (post-conviction)', 'further_misconduct': 'Writing and cashing fraudulent checks during probationary employment'}
caseinvolvement: While under five years of court-supervised probation for theft, Engineer A was employed by an engineering firm and exploited that employment context to commit further fraud (fraudulent checks), compounding both legal and professional ethical violations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:06.423338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:06.423338+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Engineering Firm (unnamed, post-conviction employer)'}
relationships: {'type': 'same_individual_as', 'target': 'Engineer A Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Probationary Status Employed Engineer
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.456308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Theft Conviction and Probation State
type: AdjudicatedWrongdoingDisclosureObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From guilty plea and sentencing through the probationary period and beyond
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Licensing board
affectedparties: Professional society
affectedparties: Subsequent employer firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
stateclass: Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's criminal conviction for theft in the first degree
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts; persists through and beyond probation
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
textreferences: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution
triggeringevent: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree and was sentenced to jail, probation, and restitution
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.456706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Tax Fraud Public Identification
type: EngineeringProfessionImageNon-CompromiseThroughEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's tax fraud conviction was publicly reported with identification of his engineering profession, associating engineering with tax fraud.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm Applied to Engineer B
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer B Public Criminal Identification
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Ethics Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that his public identification as an engineer in connection with his tax fraud conviction caused damage to the image and interests of all engineers collectively, and that compliance with professional honesty standards was required to preserve the public trust upon which the engineering profession depends.
sourcetext: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
temporalscope: At the time of the criminal conduct and its public reporting
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.463975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Public Professional Identification Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Duty
type: PublicProfessionalIdentificationCriminalConductProfessionReputationalDutyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
casecontext: Newspaper accounts of Engineer B's tax fraud conviction publicly identified him as an engineer, associating the engineering profession with criminal dishonest conduct.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Public Professional Identification Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Duty Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that his public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction created a profession-implicating dimension to his personal misconduct, triggering professional disciplinary review and the duty to cooperate with that review to protect the engineering profession's collective reputation and public trust.
sourcetext: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
temporalscope: Upon public identification as an engineer in connection with the criminal conviction
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.463186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Honesty Invoked as Core Professional Virtue Violated by Criminal Misconduct
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A guilty plea to theft in the first degree
appliedto: Engineer B conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER invoked the NSPE Code's requirement of the highest standards of integrity and honesty as a basis for holding that criminal convictions for dishonesty-based offenses (theft, fraudulent tax returns) are incompatible with professional ethics obligations, because such convictions demonstrate a character fundamentally at odds with the honesty the code demands
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The honesty obligation in the NSPE Code is not limited to professional representations but reflects a character requirement that extends to personal conduct — criminal dishonesty violates this character requirement
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: § 1 of the code speaks to '. . . the highest standards of integrity . . .'
tensionresolution: No tension to resolve — criminal convictions for dishonesty are straightforwardly incompatible with the honesty principle
textreferences: the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior
textreferences: § 1 of the code speaks to '. . . the highest standards of integrity . . .'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.468098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Honesty Professional Virtue Violated by Engineer A Fraudulent Check Writing
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Probationary Status Employed Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's writing and cashing of fraudulent checks while employed as an engineer directly violates the professional virtue of honesty, which requires engineers to refrain from deliberate deception in all dealings, not merely those directly related to engineering services
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The honesty obligation of the engineering ethics code is not limited to technical representations; it encompasses the engineer's character in all dealings, including financial transactions conducted through the employment relationship
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
tensionresolution: Honesty is a foundational professional virtue that admits no exception for personal financial dealings; fraudulent check-writing is a direct and unambiguous violation
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.461837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Honesty Professional Virtue Violated by Engineer B Tax Fraud
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's filing of fraudulent income tax returns directly violates the professional virtue of honesty, which requires engineers to make truthful representations in all dealings, including those with government authorities regarding personal financial obligations
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The deliberate falsification of tax returns to misrepresent income to the IRS is a paradigmatic act of dishonesty; the engineering ethics code's honesty obligations extend to such personal financial misrepresentations because they reflect on the engineer's character as a whole
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
tensionresolution: The deliberate nature of tax fraud eliminates any claim of inadvertence; it is a direct violation of the honesty virtue that the engineering ethics code requires of all members
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.461990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Reserved Question Definitive Resolution Obligation Met
type: ReservedJurisdictionQuestionDefinitiveResolutionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: NSPE BER Previously Reserved Question Compelled Resolution
casecontext: Case 72-6: The BER had reserved the personal misconduct jurisdiction question in Cases 62-14 and 68-7. Case 72-6 directly raised the issue, obligating the BER to resolve it definitively rather than reserving it again.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation Invoked for Cases 62-14 and 68-7
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Reserved Jurisdiction Question Definitive Resolution Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE BER was obligated to definitively resolve the previously twice-reserved question of whether personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice falls within the ethics code, and fulfilled this obligation by issuing a clear holding that such misconduct is subject to the Code of Ethics.
sourcetext: In Case No. 62-14 . . . we noted in that case: 'We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.'
temporalscope: Upon the BER's consideration of Case 72-6
textreferences: In Case No. 62-14 . . . we noted in that case: 'We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.'
textreferences: Later, in Case No. 68-7 . . . we similarly noted that: 'We do not deal in this case with the question of whether personal misconduct separate and apart from the performance of professional services would be a violation of the code.'
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.469473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority Engineer A Jurisdiction Exercise
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Repeated Criminal Conduct During Probation State
casecontext: NSPE Board of Ethical Review considering whether personal criminal misconduct by Engineer A falls within the professional ethics code's jurisdiction.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer A Theft and Probation Fraud
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
obligationclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to recognize that Engineer A's theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probationary engineering employment fell within the ethics code's jurisdiction, and to exercise disciplinary authority accordingly, not treating the Code as limited to purely technical engineering conduct.
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
temporalscope: Upon referral of Engineer A's case for ethics review
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.463455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority Engineer B Jurisdiction Exercise
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Public Professional Identity Exposure State
casecontext: NSPE Board of Ethical Review considering whether Engineer B's personal tax fraud conviction, with public identification as an engineer, falls within the professional ethics code's jurisdiction.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer B Tax Fraud Conviction
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
obligationclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to recognize that Engineer B's tax fraud conviction — particularly given his public identification as an engineer — fell within the ethics code's jurisdiction, and to exercise disciplinary authority accordingly.
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
temporalscope: Upon referral of Engineer B's case for ethics review
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.463636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Applied to Engineer A Theft
type: Dishonesty-BasedCriminalConvictionProfessionalIncompatibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's conviction for theft in the first degree — a paradigmatic dishonesty-based offense — is categorically incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice, because the willingness to take property belonging to others by deception directly contradicts the honesty and integrity obligations foundational to professional engineering
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Theft in the first degree involves deliberate dishonest taking; this is precisely the type of character deficiency that the engineering ethics code's honesty and integrity provisions are designed to address, even when the conduct occurs outside of engineering practice
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
tensionresolution: The categorical nature of the incompatibility between dishonesty-based criminal conduct and professional engineering character obligations means that no balancing is required; such conduct falls squarely within the ethics code's character jurisdiction
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.461533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Case 72-6 Profession Honor Dignity Personal Conduct Violation
type: ProfessionHonorandDignityPreservationPersonalConductObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Repeated Criminal Conduct During Probation State
prevails over: Engineer A Case 72-6 Criminal Conviction Employment Honest Disclosure Violation
casecontext: Case 72-6: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree, was sentenced to jail and probation, and then while employed as an engineer during probation wrote and cashed fraudulent checks, violating the NSPE Code's preamble obligation to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Professional Honor and Dignity Preservation Invoked as Normative Foundation in Case 72-6
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Profession Honor and Dignity Preservation Personal Conduct Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the engineering profession through his personal conduct, and violated this obligation by pleading guilty to theft in the first degree and subsequently committing fraudulent check-writing during court-supervised probation while employed as an engineer — conduct that brought disrepute to the entire profession.
sourcetext: the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . . .'
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's criminal conduct and probationary employment period
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession for the acts of a few.
textreferences: the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . . .'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.469186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting
type: CriminalConvictionDishonestyCharacterIncompatibilityEthicsReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
casecontext: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree and was sentenced to jail and probation; the conviction involved dishonest conduct incompatible with engineering professional character standards.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Applied to Engineer A Theft
derived from principle: Honesty Invoked as Core Professional Virtue Violated by Criminal Misconduct
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to submit to professional disciplinary review upon his conviction for first-degree theft — a paradigmatic dishonesty-based offense — recognizing that such conviction is categorically incompatible with the character standards required of a licensed professional engineer.
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
temporalscope: Upon entry of guilty plea and conviction
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
textreferences: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.462741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Probationary Employment Context Fraud Aggravated Ethics Violation
type: ProbationaryEmploymentContextFraudAggravatedEthicsViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Repeated Criminal Conduct During Probation State
prevails over: Engineer A Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure
casecontext: While under five years of court-supervised probation for theft, Engineer A was employed by an engineering firm and committed further fraud by writing and cashing fraudulent checks during that employment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Probationary Employment Exploitation Aggravated Misconduct Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Probationary Employment Context Fraud Aggravated Ethics Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that committing fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during court-supervised probation for prior theft constituted an aggravated ethics violation — exploiting the professional trust extended by his employer during a period of supervised rehabilitation and compounding his original misconduct.
sourcetext: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution.
temporalscope: During the period of probationary engineering employment following the theft conviction
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.463047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting
type: CriminalConvictionDishonestyCharacterIncompatibilityEthicsReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
casecontext: Engineer B was convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns with the IRS; the offense involved deliberate dishonesty toward a government authority.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Applied to Engineer B Tax Fraud
derived from principle: Honesty Professional Virtue Violated by Engineer B Tax Fraud
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to submit to professional disciplinary review upon his conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — an offense involving deliberate misrepresentation to a government authority — recognizing that such conviction is categorically incompatible with the honesty and integrity standards required of a licensed professional engineer.
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
temporalscope: Upon conviction for tax fraud
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.462868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Invoked to Reject Narrow Professional Services Limitation
type: EthicsCodeExpansiveInterpretationCanon
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Scope determination for NSPE Code of Ethics in personal misconduct cases
balancingwith: Narrow textual interpretation of ethics code scope
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER rejected the narrow argument that ethics codes apply only to conduct prejudicing professional services performance, applying an expansive interpretation that encompasses any conduct undermining public confidence in professional integrity — including personal criminal misconduct unrelated to engineering services
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Ethics code provisions should be interpreted broadly to serve their foundational purpose of protecting public confidence, not narrowly to limit disciplinary jurisdiction to professional services conduct only
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon
sourcetext: But counter to this approach should be a recognition that the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior
tensionresolution: Expansive interpretation prevails based on the foundational purpose of the ethics code
textreferences: But counter to this approach should be a recognition that the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior
textreferences: It may be argued that a code of ethics of any profession is only intended to relate to conduct which prejudices or may tend to prejudice the performance of professional services, and accordingly personal misconduct unrelated to such performance should be left to other proper authority
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.468269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Pattern of Criminal Conduct
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
appliedto: Engineer A Probationary Status Employed Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's pattern of criminal conduct — initial theft conviction followed by fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer — triggers professional accountability obligations, requiring the profession to respond through disciplinary mechanisms to protect the public and the profession's integrity
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires that the engineering profession hold its members responsible for conduct that undermines public trust, including personal criminal conduct involving dishonesty; the pattern of recidivist behavior during probation amplifies the accountability obligation
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
invokedby: State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution. During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
tensionresolution: The profession's accountability obligation to the public overrides any competing consideration of leniency toward the individual engineer; the pattern of conduct warrants formal disciplinary response
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.462157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer B Public Criminal Identification
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in connection with his tax fraud conviction triggers professional accountability obligations, because the public association of engineering with fraudulent conduct requires the profession to respond in order to maintain public trust
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When an engineer is publicly identified in their professional capacity in connection with criminal conduct, the profession's accountability obligation to the public requires a formal response; silence in the face of publicly identified dishonest conduct by a member would itself undermine public confidence in the profession's self-regulatory capacity
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service. The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
tensionresolution: The public nature of the identification eliminates privacy considerations; the profession's accountability obligation to maintain public trust requires formal disciplinary engagement
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.462316
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Applied to Engineer B Tax Fraud
type: Dishonesty-BasedCriminalConvictionProfessionalIncompatibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — an offense involving deliberate misrepresentation to a government authority — is categorically incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice, because the willingness to make false representations to obtain financial benefit directly contradicts the honesty obligations of the engineering ethics code
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Filing fraudulent tax returns requires deliberate, planned misrepresentation — the same character deficiency that would make an engineer untrustworthy in professional representations to clients, employers, and regulatory authorities; the offense is thus directly character-implicating for professional purposes
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
tensionresolution: The deliberate, planned nature of tax fraud eliminates any claim that the conduct was inadvertent or situationally excusable; it reflects a character trait — willingness to deceive for personal gain — that is fundamentally incompatible with professional engineering obligations
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.461679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Case 72-6 Criminal Conviction Employment Honest Disclosure Violation
type: CriminalConvictionEmploymentAcceptanceHonestDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Theft Conviction and Probation State
casecontext: Case 72-6: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree, was sentenced to jail and probation, and then was employed by an engineering firm during his probationary period — apparently without disclosing his criminal conviction and probationary status to his employer.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard Applied to Engineer A Employment During Probation
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to honestly disclose his criminal conviction for theft in the first degree and his status as a court-supervised probationer when accepting engineering employment, and violated this obligation by accepting employment without apparent disclosure of his criminal history, thereby deceiving his employer who extended professional trust during a period of supervised rehabilitation.
sourcetext: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree, was sentenced to jail and probation, and then while employed as an engineer during probation committed further fraudulent acts.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A accepted engineering employment during his probationary period
textreferences: Engineer A pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree, was sentenced to jail and probation, and then while employed as an engineer during probation committed further fraudulent acts.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.469784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Public Professional Identity Exposure State
type: PublicProfessionalIdentityExposureinCriminalProceedingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From publication of newspaper accounts through the persistence of those public records
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineering profession
affectedparties: Licensing board
affectedparties: Professional society
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer
stateclass: Public Professional Identity Exposure in Criminal Proceeding State
subject: Engineer B's engineering identity publicly linked to his criminal conviction in newspaper accounts
terminatedby: Not terminated; public records persist indefinitely
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer
triggeringevent: Newspaper accounts of Engineer B's tax fraud conviction identified him as an engineer
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.457895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate Invoked for Engineer A and Engineer B Discipline
type: LegalAuthorityAdjudicationasPredicateforProfessionalSocietyDisciplinaryActionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A guilty plea to theft in the first degree
appliedto: Engineer B conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns
balancingwith: Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The NSPE BER grounded its disciplinary authority over Engineer A and Engineer B in the fact that their misconduct had been officially determined by proper legal authority — criminal courts — to be beyond the pale of socially sanctioned conduct; the professional society then took note of these official findings to protect the profession's good name
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Criminal convictions by courts of law constitute the predicate official findings that authorize professional society disciplinary action on personal conduct; the professional society need not independently adjudicate the underlying conduct
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
invokedby: State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate for Professional Society Disciplinary Action Principle
sourcetext: when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
tensionresolution: The requirement of prior legal adjudication both enables professional society action (by providing the predicate finding) and limits it (to officially adjudicated conduct only)
textreferences: The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude
textreferences: when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.467592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Probationary Employment Exploitation Aggravated Misconduct Applied to Engineer A
type: ProbationaryEmploymentExploitationAggravatedMisconductPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
appliedto: Engineer A Probationary Status Employed Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's commission of fraudulent check-writing while employed as an engineer during court-supervised probation for prior theft represents an aggravated form of professional ethics violation — the exploitation of professional employment to perpetuate a pattern of dishonest conduct while under judicial supervision demonstrates a character fundamentally incompatible with professional engineering practice
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The combination of prior theft conviction, court-supervised probation, and subsequent fraudulent check-writing through exploitation of engineering employment creates an aggravated pattern of dishonest conduct; this pattern is more serious than a single isolated incident of personal misconduct and more directly implicates professional character obligations
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
invokedby: State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Probationary Employment Exploitation Aggravated Misconduct Principle
sourcetext: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution. During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
tensionresolution: The pattern of recidivist dishonest conduct during probation, exploiting professional employment, eliminates any mitigating factors that might otherwise counsel restraint in professional discipline; the aggravated nature of the misconduct warrants serious disciplinary response
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.461389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Public Confidence as Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Invoked to Resolve Jurisdiction Question
type: PublicConfidenceinProfessionalIntegrityasEthicsCodeFoundationalPurposePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A and Engineer B disciplinary proceedings
appliedto: Interpretation of NSPE Code scope in relation to personal criminal misconduct
balancingwith: Narrow textual interpretation limiting ethics codes to professional services conduct
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER resolved the previously reserved jurisdiction question by appeal to the foundational purpose of professional ethics codes: to regulate practitioners so that the public may have confidence in their integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior — this purpose requires extending the code's reach to personal criminal misconduct, because a narrow interpretation limited to professional services conduct would allow conduct that destroys public confidence while claiming code compliance
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The foundational purpose of the ethics code — public confidence in professional integrity — is the interpretive key that resolves ambiguity about the code's scope in favor of broader coverage of personal misconduct
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Public Confidence in Professional Integrity as Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Principle
sourcetext: the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior
tensionresolution: The purposivist interpretation prevails: the code's foundational purpose of maintaining public confidence requires extending jurisdiction to personal misconduct that undermines that confidence
textreferences: It may be argued that a code of ethics of any profession is only intended to relate to conduct which prejudices or may tend to prejudice the performance of professional services, and accordingly personal misconduct unrelated to such performance should be left to other proper authority
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession
textreferences: the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.467902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer B Tax Fraud Conviction
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because it constitutes deliberate dishonesty that is incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice, regardless of its lack of direct connection to engineering services
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Tax fraud, while not an engineering act, involves deliberate misrepresentation to a government authority — a form of dishonesty that directly contradicts the honesty and integrity obligations of the engineering ethics code; public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts amplifies the profession-implicating character of the conduct
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
invokedby: State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service. The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
tensionresolution: The public identification of Engineer B as an engineer in connection with the conviction makes the conduct profession-implicating; the ethics code's character-based jurisdiction encompasses such publicly identified dishonest conduct
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.460822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked in Case 72-6 Discussion
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A criminal conviction for theft
appliedto: Engineer B criminal conviction for fraudulent tax returns
balancingwith: Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The NSPE BER definitively resolved the previously reserved question from Cases 62-14 and 68-7, holding that personal misconduct of the kind shown in this case (criminal convictions for theft and fraudulent tax returns) is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly, because the code's purpose of maintaining public confidence in professional integrity extends beyond conduct directly related to engineering services
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The previously reserved question — whether personal misconduct separate from professional services falls within ethics code jurisdiction — is now affirmatively answered: personal misconduct that brings disrepute to the profession is within the code's scope
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Principle
sourcetext: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
tensionresolution: The jurisdiction is affirmed but bounded: it applies to legally adjudicated misconduct, not purely personal habits; professional societies must be judicious
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities
textreferences: We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice
textreferences: We do not deal in this case with the question of whether personal misconduct separate and apart from the performance of professional services would be a violation of the code
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.467299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation Invoked as Caveat in Case 72-6
type: ProfessionalSocietyDisciplinaryScopeLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Scope of NSPE disciplinary authority over personal conduct of member engineers
balancingwith: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: While affirming jurisdiction over personal misconduct, the BER expressly cautioned that professional societies must be careful and judicious and must not undertake to control purely personal habits or conduct — the disciplinary reach extends only to conduct officially adjudicated by legal authority as beyond socially sanctioned activity
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The affirmation of jurisdiction over personal misconduct is explicitly bounded: it does not authorize professional societies to regulate purely personal habits or lifestyle choices, only legally adjudicated misconduct
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation Principle
sourcetext: Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
tensionresolution: Jurisdiction is affirmed for legally adjudicated misconduct; purely personal habits remain outside disciplinary scope
textreferences: professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals
textreferences: when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.467443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard Applied to Engineer A Employment During Probation
type: Whole-PersonCharacterIntegrityStandardinEngineeringEmployment
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Probationary Status Employed Engineer
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's acceptance of engineering employment during court-supervised probation for theft, without apparent disclosure of his criminal history to his new employer, and his subsequent exploitation of that employment to commit further fraudulent acts, represents a failure of the whole-person character integrity standard
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: An engineer seeking employment while on probation for a dishonesty-based criminal offense must disclose that history to prospective employers; the failure to do so, combined with the subsequent exploitation of the employment context to commit further fraud, demonstrates a character fundamentally incompatible with professional engineering obligations
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard in Engineering Employment
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
tensionresolution: The character-based obligations of professional engineering employment override any claim to privacy regarding criminal history that is directly relevant to the employer's assessment of the engineer's trustworthiness
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.460985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Repeated Criminal Conduct During Probation State
type: RepeatedCriminalConductDuringSupervisedProbationWhileEmployedasEngineerState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the five-year supervised probation period, specifically when fraudulent checks were written and cashed
affectedparties: Employer firm
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Licensing board
affectedparties: Professional society
affectedparties: Victims of fraudulent checks
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:13.360142+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
stateclass: Repeated Criminal Conduct During Supervised Probation While Employed as Engineer State
subject: Engineer A's commission of additional fraudulent acts during supervised probation while employed as an engineer
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
triggeringevent: Engineer A wrote and cashed fraudulent checks while employed as an engineer during his probationary period following the theft conviction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.457210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Case 72-6 Profession Honor Dignity Personal Conduct Violation
type: ProfessionHonorandDignityPreservationPersonalConductObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
defeasible under: Engineer B Public Professional Identity Exposure State
defeasible under: Engineer B Whole-Person Integrity Scrutiny State
casecontext: Case 72-6: Engineer B was convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns and was publicly identified as an engineer in newspaper accounts, violating the NSPE Code's preamble obligation to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Professional Honor and Dignity Preservation Invoked as Normative Foundation in Case 72-6
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Profession Honor and Dignity Preservation Personal Conduct Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the engineering profession through his personal conduct, and violated this obligation by filing fraudulent income tax returns and being publicly identified in newspaper accounts as an engineer in connection with that conviction — conduct that brought disrepute to the profession.
sourcetext: the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . . .'
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer B's criminal conduct and public identification
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession.
textreferences: the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . . .'
textreferences: § 1 of the code speaks to '. . . the highest standards of integrity . . .'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.469333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Public Confidence Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Invocation
type: EngineeringProfessionImageNon-CompromiseThroughEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Judiciousness Personal Conduct Discipline Caveat
defeasible under: Engineer Whole-Person Integrity Standard Application
prevails over: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Judiciousness Personal Conduct Discipline Caveat
casecontext: Case 72-6: The BER grounded its jurisdictional holding in the foundational purpose of professional ethics codes — to regulate practitioners so the public may have confidence in their integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior — and invoked the profession's obligation to protect its good name.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Public Confidence as Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Invoked to Resolve Jurisdiction Question
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Ethics Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE BER was obligated to apply the ethics code in a manner consistent with its foundational purpose of ensuring public confidence in the profession's integrity — and fulfilled this obligation by rejecting the narrow 'professional services only' interpretation and affirming jurisdiction over personal misconduct, thereby demonstrating that the profession recognizes its obligations to justify public confidence.
sourcetext: the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior.
temporalscope: Upon the BER's resolution of Case 72-6
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession for the acts of a few without any attempt to impose whatever corrective action is possible so that the public may know that the profession recognizes its obligations to justify public confidence in the profession.
textreferences: the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.470263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Professional Honor and Dignity Preservation Invoked as Normative Foundation in Case 72-6
type: ProfessionalHonorandDignityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A criminal conviction for theft
appliedto: Engineer B criminal conviction for fraudulent tax returns and public identification as engineer
balancingwith: Personal autonomy of individual engineers
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER invoked the NSPE Code's preamble obligation to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession, and §3's prohibition on conduct likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession, as the normative foundation for extending ethics code jurisdiction to personal criminal misconduct that brings disrepute to the engineering profession
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The honor and dignity provisions of the ethics code are not limited to professional conduct in engineering practice but extend to any personal conduct that brings disrepute to the profession as a whole
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Professional Honor and Dignity Preservation Obligation
sourcetext: the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . .'
tensionresolution: The collective honor of the profession and the public's confidence in it outweigh the individual engineer's claim that personal criminal misconduct is beyond the code's reach
textreferences: It would be incongruous if these kinds of moral imperatives were construed so as to ignore the type of personal behavior which is bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession for the acts of a few without any attempt to impose whatever corrective action is possible
textreferences: Section 3—'The Engineer will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or unfavorably reflect upon the dignity or honor of the profession.'
textreferences: the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . .'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.467754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation Invoked for Cases 62-14 and 68-7
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Case No. 62-14 patent office disbarment precedent
appliedto: Case No. 68-7 intoxication discharge precedent
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER carefully distinguished Cases 62-14 and 68-7 — where the reserved question of personal misconduct jurisdiction was explicitly noted but not decided — from the present case, which directly raised and resolved that reserved question, demonstrating the obligation to trace precedent carefully and acknowledge when a prior reservation is now being resolved
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:14:43.685747+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Prior cases that reserved a question without deciding it must be distinguished from cases that directly raise and resolve that question; the resolution in the present case now fills the gap left by the earlier reservations
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
sourcetext: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
tensionresolution: No conflict — the BER uses the prior reservations as the doctrinal launching point for the present resolution
textreferences: In Case No. 62-14 , dealing with the disbarment of an engineer by the United States Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business in violation of the rules of the Patent Office, we held that the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases
textreferences: we noted in that case: 'We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.'
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.468429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm Applied to Engineer B
type: CriminalConvictionPublicIdentificationReputationalHarmtoProfessionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts of his tax fraud conviction creates a profession-implicating dimension to his personal criminal conduct, because the public association of engineering with fraudulent conduct harms the collective reputation and trustworthiness of the profession
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When an engineer's criminal conviction is publicly reported with identification of the person as an engineer, the reputational harm extends to the profession as a whole; this public dimension transforms what might otherwise be purely personal conduct into a matter of professional ethics concern
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm to Profession Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service. The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
tensionresolution: The public nature of the newspaper identification eliminates any privacy claim; the profession's legitimate interest in protecting its collective reputation justifies ethics code jurisdiction over publicly identified criminal conduct
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.461202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Ethics Code Expansive Jurisdiction Personal Misconduct Resolution
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Judiciousness Personal Conduct Discipline Caveat
defeasible under: Engineer Personal Criminal Misconduct Code Jurisdiction Question
prevails over: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Judiciousness Personal Conduct Discipline Caveat
casecontext: Case 72-6: Engineer A convicted of theft and committed fraud during probation while employed as an engineer; Engineer B convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns and publicly identified as an engineer. BER resolves the previously reserved question of whether personal misconduct falls under the ethics code.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Invoked to Reject Narrow Professional Services Limitation
derived from principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked in Case 72-6 Discussion
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE BER was obligated to recognize and definitively state that personal misconduct of the kind shown by Engineer A and Engineer B — criminal convictions for dishonesty-based offenses — falls within the jurisdiction of the NSPE Code of Ethics, rejecting the narrow argument that the code applies only to conduct prejudicing the performance of professional services.
sourcetext: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
temporalscope: Upon the BER's consideration of Case 72-6, which directly raised the previously reserved question
textreferences: The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
textreferences: We are therefore of the view, and are now prepared to state, that personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.468575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer A Theft and Probation Fraud
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
appliedto: Engineer A Probationary Status Employed Engineer
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's guilty plea to first-degree theft and subsequent fraudulent check-writing during probation while employed as an engineer falls within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code, notwithstanding that these acts were not directly related to the performance of engineering services
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:08:47.424737+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethics code's jurisdiction extends to personal criminal conduct involving dishonesty because such conduct undermines the public trust that is foundational to professional engineering practice; the fact that the fraudulent checks were written while Engineer A was employed as an engineer further implicates the professional context
invokedby: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
invokedby: State Engineering Registration Board Disciplinary Authority
principleclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution. During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
tensionresolution: The character-based nature of professional ethics obligations overrides any claim that personal criminal conduct is beyond the ethics code's reach, particularly where the conduct involves deliberate dishonesty
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.460646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure
type: CriminalConvictionEmploymentAcceptanceHonestDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
defeasible under: Engineer A Whole-Person Integrity Scrutiny State
casecontext: Engineer A, while under court-supervised probation for theft, was employed by an engineering firm; the case does not indicate he disclosed his criminal history and probationary status to his employer.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Honesty Professional Virtue Violated by Engineer A Fraudulent Check Writing
derived from principle: Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard Applied to Engineer A Employment During Probation
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to honestly disclose his theft conviction and probationary status to the engineering firm that employed him during his probation period, recognizing that accepting engineering employment without such disclosure constituted a deceptive act incompatible with the honesty standards required of professional engineers.
sourcetext: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting engineering employment during the probationary period
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.463321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure
defeasible under: Engineer A Repeated Criminal Conduct During Probation State
defeasible under: Engineer A Theft Conviction and Probation State
casecontext: Engineer A pleaded guilty to first-degree theft, was placed on probation, accepted engineering employment, and then committed further fraud by writing and cashing fraudulent checks during probation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer A Theft and Probation Fraud
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his theft conviction and subsequent fraudulent check-writing — though not directly related to engineering practice — fell within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because they reflected on his integrity, honesty, and fitness for professional practice.
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
temporalscope: From the time of the theft conviction through the period of probationary engineering employment
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.462468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
type: CriminallyConvictedPracticingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm Applied to Engineer B
adheres to principle: Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Applied to Engineer B Tax Fraud
adheres to principle: Honesty Professional Virtue Violated by Engineer B Tax Fraud
adheres to principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer B Tax Fraud Conviction
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer B Public Criminal Identification
has obligation: Engineer B Case 72-6 Profession Honor Dignity Personal Conduct Violation
has obligation: Engineer B Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting
has obligation: Engineer B Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Tax Fraud Public Identification
has obligation: Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
has obligation: Engineer B Public Professional Identification Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Duty
attributes: {'criminal_charge': 'Filing fraudulent income tax returns to the IRS', 'conviction': 'Tried and convicted', 'public_identification': 'Identified as an engineer in newspaper accounts of the case', 'professional_status': 'Active engineer at time of conviction'}
caseinvolvement: Charged, tried, and convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns with the IRS; publicly identified in newspaper accounts as an engineer, thereby associating the profession with criminal dishonesty and raising questions about fitness to practice.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:06.423338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:06.423338+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'publicly_identified_as', 'target': 'Engineer (in press coverage)'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of', 'target': 'Federal Criminal Prosecution (IRS fraud)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.456477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer A Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
type: CriminallyConvictedPracticingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Applied to Engineer A Theft
adheres to principle: Honesty Invoked as Core Professional Virtue Violated by Criminal Misconduct
adheres to principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer A Theft and Probation Fraud
adheres to principle: Probationary Employment Exploitation Aggravated Misconduct Applied to Engineer A
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Pattern of Criminal Conduct
adheres to principle: Professional Honor and Dignity Preservation Invoked as Normative Foundation in Case 72-6
has obligation: Engineer A Case 72-6 Profession Honor Dignity Personal Conduct Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Fraudulent Check Writing
has obligation: Engineer A Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
has obligation: Engineer A Probationary Employment Context Fraud Aggravated Ethics Violation
attributes: {'criminal_charge': 'Theft in the first degree (guilty plea)', 'sentence': 'Short jail term, five years supervised probation, restitution', 'subsequent_offense': 'Writing and cashing fraudulent checks while employed as engineer on probation', 'professional_status': 'Employed as engineer during probationary period'}
caseinvolvement: Pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree, sentenced to jail and probation, then while employed as an engineer during probation committed further fraud by writing and cashing fraudulent checks — representing a pattern of criminal dishonesty while holding professional engineering status.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:05:06.423338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:05:06.423338+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Engineering Firm (unnamed, post-conviction employer)'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of', 'target': 'Criminal Court Probation Supervision'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
textreferences: During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
textreferences: Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty
textreferences: He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.455050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsCodeJurisdictionRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Case 72-6 Profession Honor Dignity Personal Conduct Violation
defeasible under: Engineer B Public Professional Identity Exposure State
defeasible under: Engineer B Tax Fraud Conviction State
casecontext: Engineer B was convicted of filing fraudulent income tax returns; newspaper accounts publicly identified him as an engineer.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked Against Engineer B Tax Fraud Conviction
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:10:26.167792+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that his conviction for filing fraudulent income tax returns — though not directly related to engineering practice — fell within the jurisdiction of the professional ethics code because it reflected on his integrity, honesty, and fitness for professional practice, particularly given his public identification as an engineer in newspaper accounts.
sourcetext: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
temporalscope: From the time of the tax fraud conviction and public identification
textreferences: Engineer B was charged with, tried and convicted of the offense of filing fraudulent income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
textreferences: The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.462606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Judiciousness Personal Conduct Discipline Caveat
type: ProfessionalSocietyPersonalConductDisciplinaryJudiciousnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Ethics Code Expansive Jurisdiction Personal Misconduct Resolution
competes with: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Public Confidence Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Invocation
defeasible under: NSPE Disciplinary Jurisdiction Over Engineer Criminal Misconduct
casecontext: Case 72-6: While affirming jurisdiction over personal misconduct, the BER expressly cautioned that professional societies must not overreach into purely personal matters, grounding the caveat in the distinction between legally adjudicated misconduct and mere personal lifestyle choices.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation Invoked as Caveat in Case 72-6
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:17:05.302893+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review and professional societies with disciplinary authority
obligationclass: Professional Society Personal Conduct Disciplinary Judiciousness Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE BER was obligated to exercise — and to instruct other professional societies to exercise — careful and judicious restraint in disciplining personal conduct unrelated to professional services, limiting disciplinary action to conduct officially determined by legal authority to be beyond the pale of socially sanctioned activity, and refraining from attempting to control purely personal habits or conduct.
sourcetext: Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
temporalscope: Ongoing obligation applicable whenever a professional society considers disciplinary action for personal conduct
textreferences: But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
textreferences: Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.468727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction

NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority
type: ProfessionalSocietyDisciplinaryAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation Invoked for Cases 62-14 and 68-7
adheres to principle: Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Invoked to Reject Narrow Professional Services Limitation
adheres to principle: Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate Invoked for Engineer A and Engineer B Discipline
adheres to principle: Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked in Case 72-6 Discussion
adheres to principle: Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation Invoked as Caveat in Case 72-6
adheres to principle: Public Confidence as Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Invoked to Resolve Jurisdiction Question
has obligation: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Ethics Code Expansive Jurisdiction Personal Misconduct Resolution
has obligation: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Legal Adjudication Predicate Engineer A Theft Fraud
has obligation: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Legal Adjudication Predicate Engineer B Tax Fraud
has obligation: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Judiciousness Personal Conduct Discipline Caveat
has obligation: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Public Confidence Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Invocation
has obligation: NSPE BER Case 72-6 Reserved Question Definitive Resolution Obligation Met
has obligation: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority Engineer A Jurisdiction Exercise
has obligation: NSPE Ethics Committee Disciplinary Authority Engineer B Jurisdiction Exercise
attributes: {'institution_type': 'Professional engineering society', 'jurisdiction': 'NSPE member engineers', 'authority_basis': 'NSPE Code of Ethics §1 and §3; preamble obligations of honor and dignity', 'scope_of_authority': 'Personal misconduct adjudicated by legal authority that reflects on professional honor'}
caseinvolvement: NSPE (through its Board of Ethical Review) exercises disciplinary authority over member engineers, including for personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice, when such conduct has been adjudicated by proper legal authority and reflects upon the honor and dignity of the profession.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 151
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 151
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T10:06:21.135235+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'coordinates_with', 'target': 'State Registration Board Disciplinary Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'disciplines', 'target': 'Personal Misconduct Disciplined Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Professional Society Disciplinary Authority
sourcetext: professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services
textreferences: personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
textreferences: professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services
textreferences: the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
wasattributedto: Case 151 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T10:26:02.459674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 151 Extraction