in the recent Case 85-3 where an engineer with experience and background solely in the field of chemical engineering accepted a position as a county surveyor, we noted that although the duties of the position included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement but did not include actual preparation of engineering and surveying documents, nevertheless the engineer was unethical in accepting the position.
Clearly, in Case 85-3, the Board was faced with a situation in which an engineer was seeking to fulfill a role in which he possessed neither the qualifications nor the experience to perform in a competent manner.
Cited as analogical precedent for the principle that an engineer must possess qualifications and experience to competently perform a role, even when actual document preparation is delegated to qualified subordinates; applied to distinguish the present case on the question of qualification versus scope of sealing authority
CADD Document Sealing Practice - Responsible Charge Norms
NSPE / professional engineering community
Professional norms governing signing and sealing of engineering documents prepared by subordinates
an engineer would be required to perform all tasks related to the preparation of the drawings, plans, and specifications in order for the engineer to ethically affix his seal.
each technical segment [shall be] signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.
The case centrally applies norms governing when a chief engineer may ethically seal documents prepared by subordinates, including the requirement for direction and control over each technical segment and the obligation that each segment be sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared it
Professional engineering licensing boards and societies
Professional Norms Governing Sealing of Plans Prepared by Others
Engineer A is the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm, and affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans
At times Engineer A also seals plans prepared by non-registered, graduate engineers working under his general supervision
Engineer A (implicitly) in determining whether his sealing practice is ethically and legally correct
Establishes the professional obligations and required level of review when an engineer seals plans prepared by subordinates working under their direction and control, directly applicable to Engineer A's practice of sealing plans he has not personally reviewed in detail
Case 85-3 decision (1985) before current case analysis
Case 85-3 — Chemical Engineer Accepting County Surveyor Role
From acceptance of the county surveyor position through the Board's determination that the acceptance was unethical
Public relying on surveying and highway improvement oversight
an engineer with experience and background solely in the field of chemical engineering accepted a position as a county surveyor
Supervisory Role Domain Incompetence Acceptance State
Engineer in Case 85-3 who accepted county surveyor position despite having competence only in chemical engineering
Board's ethical determination that the role required domain competence the engineer lacked
Engineer A's responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents
We are convinced that neither is this the intent of the Code provisions nor is this what is commonly understood to be the proper oversight role of a county surveyor
the engineer was unethical in accepting the position
Chemical engineer accepting county surveyor position framed as oversight rather than direct technical preparation
CausalLink_Accepting Chief Engineer Role
CausalLink_Consciously Omitting Detailed
CausalLink_Defining General Supervision S
CausalLink_Sealing Non-Registered Enginee
CausalLink_Sealing Registered Engineers'
Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Model — Engineer A
Duration of the projects for which Engineer A sealed documents prepared by subordinate engineers
the chief engineer should be involved at the outset of the project in the establishment of the design concept and the design requirements
Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Model State
Engineer A's role as chief engineer sealing documents prepared by subordinates in a large engineering firm
Project completion or restructuring of sealing practices to comply with segment-level attribution requirements
the chief engineer should be available to consult on technical questions relating to the project design
the role of the chief engineer in an engineering firm may be that of a 'manager who provides guidance, direction, and counsel to those within his responsible charge'
Engineer A's assumption of chief engineer role with delegation of technical preparation to subordinates
Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Standard Applied to Engineer A
Engineer A Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor
Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard for Supervisory Sealing Principle
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution for Responsible Charge Review Obligation
The Board articulated that Engineer A, as chief engineer, must be involved at project outset in design concept and requirements, must review design elements as the project develops, and must be available for technical consultation — defining the minimum engagement standard for ethically sealing documents prepared by subordinates in a large firm.
Large-firm practice necessitates delegation, but responsible charge requires the chief engineer to maintain substantive engagement at three key points: inception, developmental review, and ongoing consultation availability — not merely administrative sign-off.
Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Engagement Standard
the chief engineer should be involved at the outset of the project in the establishment of the design concept and the design requirements, as well as in the review of the various elements of the design or project status as the project develops.
The chief engineer standard is satisfied by substantive engagement at key project stages; it does not require personal preparation of every element but does require more than trust in subordinates' competence.
the chief engineer should be available to consult on technical questions relating to the project design.
Competence Prerequisite for Role Acceptance Applied via Case 85-3 Analogy
Engineer A Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor (present case distinction)
Engineer A Out-of-Competence County Surveyor (Case 85-3 analogy)
The Board invoked Case 85-3 (chemical engineer as county surveyor) to establish that accepting a professional role requiring competencies one does not possess is unethical, even if the role involves oversight rather than direct document preparation — distinguishing this from Engineer A's situation where the issue is the scope of sealing delegation rather than role-level incompetence.
A PE license does not authorize practice in disciplines for which the engineer lacks qualifications; the county surveyor precedent anchors the competence baseline against which the present case's sealing delegation question is distinguished.
PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
in the recent Case 85-3 where an engineer with experience and background solely in the field of chemical engineering accepted a position as a county surveyor, we noted that...nevertheless the engineer was unethical in accepting the position.
Case 85-3 establishes the outer boundary (role-level incompetence is unethical); the present case operates within that boundary because Engineer A is not alleged to lack overall competence, only to have delegated preparation to subordinates.
In the present case there is no indication that Engineer A possesses all of the qualifications or the experience to perform all of the requisite services.
It is unethical for Engineer A to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or which he has not checked and reviewed in detail.
Beyond the Board's finding that sealing unreviewed plans is unethical, Engineer A's practice reveals a threshold violation that precedes any individual sealing act: by accepting and retaining the Chief Engineer role in an organization whose scale structurally prevents him from exercising responsible charge, Engineer A committed an antecedent ethical breach analogous to the one identified in BER Case 85-3. Just as the chemical engineer in that case erred by accepting a county surveyor role outside his domain competence, Engineer A erred by accepting — and continuing to hold — a sealing authority role whose organizational conditions made the discharge of that authority impossible. The ethical violation is therefore not merely episodic (each individual unsealed plan) but structural and ongoing: the firm's operating model itself is the source of the violation, and Engineer A's failure to either restructure that model or relinquish the sealing authority constitutes a sustained breach of the competence prerequisite for role acceptance.
The Board's conclusion, while correct, does not distinguish between two categorically different risk profiles embedded in Engineer A's practice. When Engineer A seals plans prepared by registered engineer subordinates who do not affix their own seals, the ethical deficiency is primarily one of inadequate personal review — the subordinate engineers possess licensure-validated competence, and the principal harm is the absence of Engineer A's own verification. However, when Engineer A seals plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers under only general supervision, a compounded and categorically more serious violation occurs: the work has been produced by individuals whose professional judgment has not been independently validated by licensure, and Engineer A's general supervision falls short of the 'direct control and personal supervision' standard that the NCEE Model Law and engineering intern supervision norms require before a licensed engineer may take professional responsibility for non-licensed subordinate work. This distinction warrants a separate and more stringent ethical finding for the non-registered subordinate sealing practice, because the public is exposed not merely to unverified work but to work that has never been subjected to any independent professional quality gate other than Engineer A's cursory oversight.
The Board's conclusion implicitly treats Engineer A's ethical failure as a binary matter — he either reviews in detail or he does not — but a complete analysis reveals that Engineer A also bore affirmative restructuring obligations that he failed to discharge. Specifically, Engineer A was ethically required to pursue at least one of three corrective paths: (1) require registered engineer subordinates to affix their own seals to the technical segments they personally prepared, thereby invoking Section II.2.c's coordinating engineer model in a structurally sound way that distributes sealing accountability to the actual preparers; (2) reduce the firm's project volume to a scale at which detailed review was feasible; or (3) decline to seal any document he had not personally reviewed in sufficient detail. Engineer A's passive continuation of an inadequate supervisory model — justified only by confidence in subordinates — reflects not merely a failure to review but a failure of professional integrity in the virtue ethics sense: a conscientious engineer would have recognized that organizational scale is a structural problem demanding structural solutions, not an excuse that dissolves the responsible charge obligation. The firm itself bears independent ethical responsibility for institutionalizing an operating model that made adequate review impossible, but this shared institutional culpability does not diminish Engineer A's personal obligation to refuse to seal or to restructure before sealing.
In response to Q101: The ethical analysis does change materially depending on whether subordinate plan preparers are registered engineers or non-registered graduate engineers, and Engineer A bears distinct obligations in each case. When subordinates are registered engineers, Engineer A's failure to conduct detailed review is a serious ethical violation, but the registered subordinates themselves possess independent professional standing and licensure accountability that provides at least a structural floor of competence assurance. The ethical deficiency is Engineer A's abdication of responsible charge, not the absence of any licensed professional judgment in the work. By contrast, when subordinates are non-registered graduate engineers, the ethical violation is categorically more severe: no licensed professional judgment has been applied to the work at any stage prior to Engineer A's seal, meaning the seal itself becomes the sole professional certification of work that has received no professional-level verification whatsoever. The NCEE Model Law's requirement of 'direct control and personal supervision' for non-licensed subordinate work is not a procedural nicety but a substantive safeguard that compensates for the absence of the subordinate's own licensure accountability. Engineer A's practice of sealing non-registered engineers' plans under mere 'general supervision' therefore exposes the public to a categorically greater risk, and the Board's single unified finding of unethical conduct, while correct, understates the aggravated nature of the non-registered subordinate scenario. Engineer A's distinct obligation in the non-registered case is not merely to review more carefully but to exercise the kind of direct, granular, contemporaneous control that functionally substitutes for the absent licensure of the subordinate.
In response to Q102: The engineering firm itself bears an independent and non-trivial ethical responsibility for structuring its operations in a way that makes adequate responsible charge review structurally impossible for Engineer A. The Board's analysis correctly identifies Engineer A's individual ethical violation, but the exclusive focus on Engineer A as the ethical actor obscures a systemic organizational failure. When a firm grows to a scale at which its designated chief engineer cannot physically conduct detailed reviews of the volume of plans being sealed, the firm has created an institutional arrangement that is structurally incompatible with the professional obligations that licensure law and the NSPE Code impose. The firm is not a passive backdrop to Engineer A's individual choices; it is an active participant in establishing the supervisory architecture, project volume, staffing ratios, and sealing protocols that make the violation possible and, indeed, nearly inevitable. Placing the entire ethical burden on Engineer A alone allows the organizational structure that generates the violation to escape scrutiny. A more complete ethical analysis would hold that the firm has an affirmative obligation to design its operations so that responsible charge is achievable — for example, by implementing multi-engineer sealing models, limiting project volume per sealing engineer, or requiring subordinate registered engineers to seal their own segments. The failure to do so is not merely a business decision but an ethical one, because the firm's operational model systematically degrades the public safety protections that the sealing requirement is designed to provide.
In response to Q103: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must not seal plans he has not reviewed in detail implies, but does not articulate, a set of affirmative restructuring obligations. Engineer A is not merely required to stop an improper practice; he is ethically obligated to take positive steps to bring the firm's sealing architecture into compliance. The most structurally sound affirmative step is requiring subordinate registered engineers to affix their own seals to the technical segments they personally prepare, as expressly contemplated by Section II.2.c's coordinating engineer provision. This would distribute professional accountability to the engineers who actually possess direct knowledge of the work, while permitting Engineer A to seal the project as a whole in a coordination capacity — provided he has genuinely exercised responsible charge over the project's conceptual framework, design requirements, and integration. Additionally, Engineer A is obligated to refuse to seal plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers unless he can demonstrate direct control and personal supervision of that work, and to advocate within the firm for staffing and workflow changes that make such supervision feasible. If the firm's scale makes these steps impossible, Engineer A's affirmative obligation extends to declining the chief engineer sealing role itself, or to restructuring the role so that sealing authority is distributed among multiple registered engineers each capable of exercising genuine responsible charge over their respective domains. Inaction in the face of a known structural impossibility is itself an ethical failure, not a neutral default.
In response to Q104: Engineer A's act of sealing plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers without direct control and personal supervision does expose the public to a categorically greater risk than sealing plans prepared by registered subordinates, and this distinction warrants a separate and more stringent ethical finding that the Board's unified conclusion does not fully capture. When Engineer A seals plans prepared by registered engineer subordinates without detailed review, there exists at least a residual layer of professional accountability: the subordinate engineers are themselves licensed, have passed competency examinations, and are individually subject to professional discipline. The ethical failure is Engineer A's, but the work itself has passed through at least one professionally accountable mind. When Engineer A seals plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers under only general supervision, no such residual layer exists. The graduate engineer's work has received no professional-level verification from any licensed engineer before the seal is affixed. The seal therefore misrepresents to the public, to regulators, and to clients that a licensed professional has exercised responsible charge over work that has in fact received none. This is not merely a procedural shortcut but a substantive misrepresentation of the professional oversight actually provided. The Dual-Mode Seal Authorization Principle recognizes this distinction by imposing the heightened standard of direct control and personal supervision specifically for non-licensed subordinate work, and a complete ethical analysis should treat the non-registered subordinate sealing scenario as an aggravated violation warranting independent emphasis beyond the general finding.
In response to Q201: The Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Standard and the Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard do exist in genuine tension, and the Board's analysis resolves that tension by treating the managerial model as insufficient without fully articulating where the boundary lies. The resolution implicit in the Board's reasoning is that conceptual direction, design requirement setting, and consultative input on technical questions — the activities Engineer A actually performs — constitute a necessary but not sufficient component of responsible charge. They are the upstream conditions that make detailed review meaningful, not substitutes for it. The boundary between legitimate managerial oversight and insufficient review should be drawn at the point where the sealing engineer can form an independent professional judgment about whether the completed work conforms to the design intent, applicable standards, and public safety requirements. A chief engineer who sets design requirements and answers technical questions but never verifies that the resulting documents actually reflect those requirements and answers has exercised only half of responsible charge. The managerial contribution is the input side; the detailed review is the output verification side. Both are required. The practical implication is that a chief engineer in a large firm may legitimately rely on subordinates to execute design work, but must implement review checkpoints sufficient to form a genuine professional judgment about the completed product before sealing — not a rubber-stamp review, but one substantive enough to detect material errors or deviations from design intent.
In response to Q202: The tension between the Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Principle and the Technical Segment Sealing by Qualified Preparers principle is real but resolvable, and its resolution actually points toward the affirmative restructuring obligation identified in Q103. The Non-Substitution Principle correctly holds that Engineer A's trust in subordinates cannot replace his own verification when he is the sole sealing engineer. However, the Technical Segment Sealing principle does not contradict this; rather, it offers a structural solution. If subordinate registered engineers affix their own seals to the segments they prepare, the professional judgment and accountability of those engineers is not merely trusted — it is formally certified and legally attributed to them. In that scenario, Engineer A's coordinating seal under Section II.2.c does not rest on unverified trust but on the documented professional certifications of the segment preparers, combined with Engineer A's own responsible charge over the project's integration and coordination. The two principles therefore operate at different levels: the Non-Substitution Principle prohibits Engineer A from treating trust as a substitute for verification when he alone seals; the Technical Segment Sealing principle provides a mechanism by which verification is formally distributed to those with direct knowledge, making Engineer A's coordinating role ethically sound. The conflict dissolves when the firm adopts the multi-seal model; it persists only when Engineer A insists on being the sole sealing engineer in a structure that makes his own verification impossible.
In response to Q203: The tension between the Competence Prerequisite for Role Acceptance principle drawn from BER Case 85-3 and the Professional Accountability principle is genuine and reveals a threshold ethical question the Board does not fully address. The Case 85-3 analogy holds that accepting a role one lacks the competence — or, by extension, the practical capacity — to fully discharge is itself an ethical violation. Applied to Engineer A, this suggests that if the organizational scale of the firm made detailed review structurally impossible from the outset, then Engineer A's acceptance of the chief engineer sealing role under those conditions was itself the threshold ethical act, not merely the downstream sealing of individual plans. The Professional Accountability principle then compounds this: having accepted the role, Engineer A is fully responsible for all work sealed under his authority, creating a situation in which the threshold violation generates an ongoing cascade of downstream violations. The resolution of this tension is not that Engineer A should have refused the chief engineer role categorically, but that he should have accepted it only on the condition that the firm's structure would be redesigned to make responsible charge achievable — whether through multi-engineer sealing, reduced project volume, or enhanced review protocols. The ethical failure is therefore both anterior (accepting an impossible role without restructuring conditions) and ongoing (continuing to seal without adequate review). The Board's finding addresses only the ongoing dimension; a complete analysis would also identify the anterior threshold violation.
In response to Q204: The tension between the Seal and Signature as Professional Judgment Certification principle and the Mutually Dependent Code Provision Reading principle, when applied to Section II.2.c's coordinating engineer provision, is the most theoretically significant tension in this case. Section II.2.c does expressly contemplate that a coordinating engineer may accept responsibility for an entire project, which could be read to imply that the coordinating seal carries a different — and less granular — certification than the seal of the direct preparer. However, a careful reading of the mutually dependent provisions forecloses this interpretation. Section II.2.c does not create a lower standard of professional judgment for the coordinating engineer; it creates a different scope of responsibility. The coordinating engineer's seal certifies professional judgment about the project's integration, coherence, and conformity to overall design requirements — not necessarily about every computational detail in every technical segment. But this is only ethically sound when the technical segments themselves have been sealed by their qualified preparers, whose seals certify the segment-level professional judgment. When Engineer A is the sole sealing engineer and subordinates affix no seals, Section II.2.c's coordinating role cannot be invoked to justify a reduced certification standard, because there are no segment-level seals providing the underlying professional accountability on which the coordinating seal legitimately rests. The coordinating engineer provision therefore does not conflict with the Professional Judgment Certification principle when the multi-seal model is properly implemented; it conflicts only when it is misused as a justification for a single engineer to seal an entire large project without either detailed review or subordinate seals.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's act of affixing his seal does constitute a categorical breach of professional duty, independent of his confidence in subordinates' competence, because the seal functions as a formal certification of personal professional knowledge and judgment that is non-delegable by its very nature. The deontological analysis proceeds from the nature of the act itself: a seal is not merely a bureaucratic marker of organizational affiliation but a first-person professional assertion — 'I, as a licensed engineer, certify that I have exercised responsible charge over this work.' This assertion is either true or false as a matter of fact, and its truth cannot be manufactured by confidence in others. Engineer A's rationalization — that trust in competent subordinates satisfies the sealing obligation — commits a categorical error by substituting a relational attitude (confidence) for a cognitive act (personal verification and judgment). From a Kantian perspective, universalizing Engineer A's maxim — 'a chief engineer may seal plans he has not reviewed in detail, provided he is confident in his subordinates' — would systematically destroy the institution of professional sealing, because the seal's social function depends entirely on its being a reliable signal of actual personal professional review. A world in which all chief engineers followed this maxim would be one in which seals conveyed no meaningful information about the quality of professional oversight, rendering the entire licensure and sealing system incoherent. The deontological verdict is therefore unambiguous: the breach is categorical, not contingent on outcomes.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the systemic risk to public safety created by Engineer A's practice of sealing unreviewed plans does outweigh the organizational efficiency gains, and the consequentialist analysis reveals an additional dimension the Board does not address: the systemic erosion of the professional sealing institution itself. The immediate consequentialist calculus is straightforward — the probability of undetected design errors multiplied by the severity of potential public harm (structural failures, safety hazards, infrastructure failures) substantially exceeds the efficiency gains from allowing a large firm to operate without chief-engineer review of every design. But the more significant consequentialist harm is systemic: if Engineer A's practice becomes normalized across large engineering firms, the professional seal loses its function as a reliable public safety signal. Clients, regulators, and the public rely on the seal as a proxy for professional oversight; if that proxy is systematically decoupled from actual oversight, the entire information architecture of professional licensure degrades. The efficiency gains are real but bounded — they accrue primarily to the firm and its clients in the form of faster project delivery and lower costs. The risks are unbounded in principle and are borne primarily by third parties and the public who have no contractual relationship with the firm and no ability to independently verify the quality of the professional oversight behind the seal. A consequentialist analysis that accounts for these systemic and distributional dimensions strongly supports the Board's conclusion and suggests that the efficiency rationale is not merely insufficient but affirmatively misleading as a justification.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's substitution of trust in subordinates for personal verification does reflect a failure of professional integrity, and the virtue ethics analysis adds a dimension that neither the deontological nor consequentialist frameworks fully capture: the question of what kind of professional Engineer A is becoming through the habituation of this practice. Virtue ethics evaluates not only discrete acts but the character dispositions that acts express and reinforce. Engineer A's rationalization — that organizational scale excuses him from detailed review — reflects a disposition to treat structural inconvenience as a moral exemption, which is precisely the disposition that a person of professional integrity would resist. A truly conscientious engineer, confronted with the recognition that organizational scale makes adequate review impossible, would experience this as a problem demanding a solution, not as a fact that dissolves the obligation. The virtue of professional integrity requires not only performing one's duties when convenient but actively restructuring one's circumstances to make duty performance possible. Engineer A's failure is therefore not merely a failure of a specific act but a failure of practical wisdom — the capacity to recognize what one's professional role genuinely requires and to take the steps necessary to fulfill it, even when those steps are organizationally costly. The habituation of the rationalization ('I trust my subordinates, therefore I need not review') further degrades the disposition over time, making future compliance progressively less likely and the character failure progressively more entrenched.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c, read as mutually dependent provisions, do impose a unified and non-waivable duty on Engineer A such that accepting the chief engineer role without the capacity to exercise responsible charge over all sealed documents constitutes a threshold ethical violation independent of any downstream harm. Section II.2.a requires that engineers undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience; read in the context of responsible charge, this extends to the practical capacity to discharge the role's obligations, not merely technical competence in the subject matter. Section II.2.b prohibits sealing documents dealing with subject matter in which the engineer lacks competence — and the Board's analysis makes clear that 'competence' in this context includes the practical ability to conduct adequate review, not merely abstract technical knowledge. Section II.2.c's coordinating engineer provision, read in conjunction with the other two, does not create an escape valve from these requirements but rather specifies the conditions under which a coordinating role is ethically permissible — conditions that include, implicitly, the ability to exercise genuine responsible charge over the coordination function. The integrated reading therefore generates a threshold obligation: before accepting the chief engineer sealing role, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the organizational structure would permit him to fulfill the role's requirements, and to decline or restructure if it would not. This threshold obligation is non-waivable because it is grounded in the non-delegable nature of professional accountability, not in any contingent assessment of likely outcomes.
In response to Q401: If Engineer A had restructured the firm's sealing practice so that each registered engineer subordinate affixed their own seal to the technical segments they personally prepared, this restructuring would substantially — though not automatically — satisfy the responsible charge standard under Section II.2.c, provided that Engineer A's coordinating role was genuinely substantive. The key insight is that Section II.2.c's coordinating engineer provision is not a reduced-standard exception but a role-appropriate standard: the coordinating engineer's responsible charge is over the project's integration, coherence, and conformity to overall design requirements, while the segment preparers' responsible charge is over their respective technical domains. When both levels of sealing are present, the professional accountability structure is complete. Engineer A's conceptual direction, design requirement setting, and consultative input on technical questions — activities he actually performs — would constitute genuine responsible charge over the coordination function in this model, because the segment-level professional accountability would be formally attributed to the engineers with direct knowledge of the work. The counterfactual therefore reveals that the Board's finding does not condemn the chief engineer role as such, but rather the specific practice of a single engineer sealing an entire large project without either detailed review or subordinate seals. The multi-seal model is the ethically sound path, and Engineer A's failure to implement it — or to advocate for its implementation — is a significant dimension of his ethical failure.
In response to Q402: If Engineer A had declined to seal plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers unless he could exercise direct control and personal supervision over their work, the ethical viability of the firm's operational model would depend entirely on whether the firm was willing to restructure its use of non-registered engineers. The NCEE Model Law's direct control and personal supervision standard for non-licensed subordinate work is not aspirational but mandatory, and it reflects the structural reality that non-registered engineers cannot independently certify their own work. If the firm's scale made direct control and personal supervision of all non-registered engineer work impossible for Engineer A alone, the firm would face a binary choice: either assign non-registered engineer work only to projects where a registered engineer with sufficient capacity could exercise direct supervision, or limit the use of non-registered engineers to tasks that do not require professional sealing. The counterfactual therefore reveals that the firm's operational model, as structured, was not ethically viable for non-registered subordinate work at the scale described — not because large firms cannot ethically employ non-registered engineers, but because the firm had not distributed supervisory responsibility among enough registered engineers to make direct control and personal supervision achievable. The ethical implication is that organizational scale is a resource allocation problem, not a standard-reduction justification: the firm needed more registered engineers in supervisory roles, not a lower standard for the one it had.
In response to Q403: If Engineer A had applied the Case 85-3 reasoning and refused to accept the chief engineer sealing role given the organizational scale that made detailed review impossible, the firm would have been compelled to confront the structural incompatibility between its operational model and the professional sealing requirements — and the most likely outcome would have been adoption of a multi-engineer sealing model that better protected the public. The Case 85-3 analogy is instructive precisely because it identifies role acceptance as the threshold ethical decision: a chemical engineer who accepts a county surveyor position without surveying competence does not merely commit a series of downstream errors but makes a single anterior decision that generates all subsequent violations. Similarly, Engineer A's acceptance of a chief engineer sealing role in an organization whose scale made responsible charge impossible was the threshold decision that generated the ongoing pattern of violations. Had Engineer A refused the role on these grounds, the firm's leadership would have faced a clear choice: restructure the sealing architecture to distribute responsible charge among multiple engineers, reduce project volume to a level manageable by a single chief engineer, or accept that the firm could not legally and ethically operate at its current scale without additional licensed engineering oversight. Any of these outcomes would have been more protective of the public than the status quo. The counterfactual therefore supports the conclusion that the threshold violation — accepting an impossible role — is not merely an academic point but a practically significant one, because refusing the role would have generated systemic corrective pressure that ongoing compliance failures do not.
In response to Q404: If Engineer A had implemented a mandatory checkpoint system requiring detailed review of each project at a defined completion milestone before affixing his seal — even at the cost of reduced firm output — this would likely have constituted sufficient responsible charge to satisfy both the NCEE Model Law definition and the NSPE Code's sealing provisions, provided the checkpoint review was genuinely substantive rather than perfunctory. The answer reveals something important about the workability of the Board's standard for large engineering organizations: the standard is demanding but not impossible, and its demands are calibrated to the nature of the professional certification being made, not to the operational convenience of the certifying engineer. A checkpoint system that required Engineer A to conduct a detailed review of completed plans — examining design calculations, specifications, and drawings for conformity to design intent, applicable standards, and public safety requirements — would satisfy the 'direction and control' standard because it would give Engineer A the personal knowledge necessary to make the professional judgment that the seal certifies. The organizational cost of such a system is real: it would slow project delivery and might require the firm to reduce its project volume or hire additional registered engineers to share the review burden. But this cost is precisely what the responsible charge standard is designed to impose — it is the cost of professional accountability, and it cannot be externalized onto the public by substituting organizational efficiency for professional verification. The counterfactual therefore confirms that the Board's standard is workable for large organizations, but only if those organizations are willing to bear the costs that genuine professional accountability requires.
The tension between the Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Standard and the Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard was resolved decisively in favor of the latter, but the resolution was not a simple rejection of managerial oversight as a legitimate mode of engineering responsibility. Rather, the Board drew a threshold distinction: conceptual direction, design-requirement setting, and consultative input are necessary but not sufficient conditions for responsible charge. They constitute the floor of engagement, not the ceiling of obligation. A chief engineer who contributes at the conceptual and consultative level has done something professionally meaningful, but has not yet done enough to certify — through the act of sealing — that the resulting documents reflect his personal professional judgment. The case teaches that when two principles operate at different levels of abstraction (managerial oversight versus document-level verification), the more granular and document-specific principle governs the specific act of sealing, while the managerial principle governs the broader organizational role. Engineer A conflated the two levels, treating role-level engagement as document-level certification. The Board's resolution makes clear that the seal is a document-level act requiring document-level verification, regardless of how substantial the engineer's role-level contributions may be.
The Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Principle and the Technical Segment Sealing by Qualified Preparers principle, rather than genuinely conflicting, operate as complementary correctives that together point toward the same structural remedy. The Non-Substitution Principle establishes that Engineer A's confidence in his subordinates cannot replace his own verification when he is the sealing engineer. The Technical Segment Sealing principle establishes that registered subordinate engineers are themselves capable of bearing professional responsibility for the segments they prepare, and should affix their own seals accordingly. Read together, these principles do not create an irresolvable tension — they dissolve the false dilemma Engineer A constructed. Engineer A assumed that either he seals everything or nothing gets sealed. The principles jointly reveal a third path: registered subordinate engineers seal the segments they prepare, exercising their own professional judgment and accountability, while Engineer A seals only those elements he has personally reviewed in sufficient detail, or assumes the coordination role under Section II.2.c with a genuinely restructured review architecture. The case thus teaches that principle tensions in engineering ethics are often symptoms of a structural problem in practice design rather than genuine logical contradictions in the code, and that resolving the tension requires restructuring the practice rather than subordinating one principle to the other.
The most consequential principle interaction in this case is the collision between the Competence Prerequisite for Role Acceptance principle — drawn by analogy from BER Case 85-3 — and the Professional Accountability principle that holds Engineer A fully responsible for all work sealed under his authority. This tension is not merely theoretical: it reveals a structural ethical trap embedded in large-firm practice. If Engineer A accepts the chief engineer role knowing that organizational scale makes detailed review impossible, he has potentially committed a threshold ethical violation at the moment of role acceptance, not merely at the moment of sealing. Yet the Professional Accountability principle simultaneously holds him responsible for every document he seals, creating a compounding obligation that grows with each sealed document. The case teaches that these two principles are not in genuine conflict but are sequentially ordered: the Competence Prerequisite principle operates at the role-acceptance stage and is the primary preventive obligation, while the Professional Accountability principle operates at the document-certification stage and is the ongoing enforcement obligation. Engineer A's error was in treating the organizational scale problem as a background condition to be managed rather than as a threshold question about whether the role could be ethically accepted and discharged at all. The resolution implied by the Board's reasoning — though not made fully explicit — is that accepting a role one cannot discharge with integrity is itself an ethical violation, and that the downstream sealing violations are symptomatic of that foundational failure. This prioritization places role-acceptance competence assessment above document-level rationalization as the primary site of ethical responsibility.
Consciously Omitting Detailed Design Review
Consciously Omitting Detailed Design Review → Ethics Violation Determination Reached
Should Engineer A continue sealing plans prepared by subordinates on the basis of general direction and confidence in their competence, or must he either conduct a detailed review of each plan before sealing or restructure sealing authority so that responsible charge is actually exercised?
Engineer A, as Chief Engineer of a large engineering firm, seals plans prepared by both registered and non-registered subordinate engineers without conducting a detailed review or check of the design, justifying this practice by citing organizational scale and confidence in his subordinates' competence. The core decision is whether Engineer A may ethically affix his professional seal under these conditions or must instead either conduct the requisite detailed review or restructure the sealing authority so that responsible charge is genuinely exercised before any seal is affixed.
Engineer A institutes a mandatory, substantive review of each project's completed plans at a defined milestone before affixing his seal — examining design calculations, specifications, and drawings for conformity to design intent, applicable standards, and public safety requirements — accepting that this will slow firm output and may require reducing project volume or hiring additional registered engineers to share the review burden.
Engineer A continues his current practice of sealing plans prepared by subordinates on the basis of general direction, design-concept involvement, and confidence in subordinate competence, treating his managerial engagement as sufficient to constitute responsible charge given the organizational realities of a large firm.
Engineer A requires each registered subordinate engineer to affix their own professional seal to the technical segments they personally prepared, invoking the Section II.2.c coordinating engineer model, so that Engineer A's coordinating seal rests on formally attributed segment-level professional accountability rather than on unverified trust — while Engineer A retains responsibility for project integration, coherence, and conformity to overall design requirements.
Should Engineer A continue sealing plans under a general managerial oversight model, restructure the firm's sealing practice to require subordinate registered engineers to affix their own seals to segments they prepare, or decline to seal any plans he has not personally reviewed in detail?
Engineer A, serving as Chief Engineer of a large engineering firm, seals plans prepared by subordinate engineers — both registered and non-registered — without conducting detailed reviews of each document, relying instead on general supervisory oversight and confidence in subordinates' competence. The core decision is whether Engineer A should continue sealing under this managerial model, restructure the firm's sealing architecture to distribute accountability to subordinate registered engineers, or decline to seal documents he has not personally reviewed in sufficient detail.
Require each subordinate registered engineer to affix their own seal to the technical segments they personally prepare, while Engineer A assumes the coordinating engineer role under Section II.2.c — exercising genuine responsible charge over project integration, design requirements, and coherence — and declines to seal any non-registered engineer work without direct control and personal supervision.
Retain the current practice in which Engineer A seals all firm plans based on his conceptual direction, design-requirement setting, and consultative input, treating the Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Standard as sufficient to satisfy responsible charge obligations given the organizational scale and demonstrated competence of subordinates.
Implement a mandatory detailed review checkpoint for each project at a defined completion milestone before Engineer A affixes his seal — examining design calculations, specifications, and drawings for conformity to design intent and applicable standards — even if this reduces firm output or requires hiring additional registered engineers to share the review burden.
Should Engineer A treat his sealing obligations identically for plans prepared by registered subordinates and plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers, or must he recognize a categorically heightened duty of direct control and personal supervision before sealing non-registered engineers' work — and decline to seal that work unless such supervision has actually been exercised?
Engineer A's sealing practice encompasses two categorically distinct scenarios: plans prepared by registered engineer subordinates who do not affix their own seals, and plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers working under his general supervision. The ethical analysis must determine whether these two scenarios warrant the same finding or whether the non-registered subordinate scenario constitutes a categorically more serious and separately cognizable violation — given that the NCEE Model Law imposes a heightened 'direct control and personal supervision' standard specifically for non-licensed subordinate work, and that no independent professional quality gate exists for non-registered engineers' work prior to Engineer A's seal.
Engineer A recognizes a categorical distinction between the two scenarios, declines to seal plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers unless he has exercised direct control and personal supervision over that specific work, and advocates within the firm for restructuring — either by assigning a registered engineer with sufficient supervisory capacity to directly oversee each non-registered engineer's work, or by restricting non-registered engineers to tasks that do not require professional sealing.
Engineer A treats his general supervisory engagement as equally sufficient for both registered and non-registered subordinate work, reasoning that his involvement in design concept, design requirements, and technical consultation constitutes responsible charge regardless of the licensure status of the preparer, and that the firm's internal quality culture provides adequate assurance for all work product.
Engineer A requires that every non-registered graduate engineer's work be co-supervised by a designated registered engineer subordinate who exercises direct control and personal supervision over that specific work product and who is identified as the responsible supervising engineer — while Engineer A retains coordinating oversight — thereby distributing the direct supervision obligation to engineers with sufficient capacity to discharge it without requiring Engineer A to personally supervise every non-registered engineer's task.
Should Engineer A accept and retain the Chief Engineer sealing role while the firm's organizational scale makes detailed responsible charge review structurally impossible, or must he either restructure the firm's sealing architecture to make responsible charge achievable — for example by requiring subordinate registered engineers to seal their own segments — or relinquish the sealing authority he cannot properly discharge?
Engineer A accepted and continues to hold the Chief Engineer sealing role in an organization whose scale structurally prevents him from exercising responsible charge over the volume of plans he seals. The threshold ethical question — distinct from the downstream question of whether individual sealings were proper — is whether Engineer A was obligated to either restructure the firm's sealing architecture before accepting or continuing in the role, or to decline or relinquish the sealing authority if restructuring was not achievable. This implicates the BER Case 85-3 analogy (accepting a role one cannot discharge is itself an ethical violation) and the affirmative restructuring obligations that flow from the Supervisory Sealing Authority Structural Redesign Capability.
Engineer A proactively redesigns the firm's sealing authority structure by requiring registered subordinate engineers to affix their own professional seals to the technical segments they personally prepared, assuming the Section II.2.c coordinating engineer role for project integration and coherence, and declining to seal any document for which neither he nor a qualified subordinate has exercised genuine responsible charge — accepting that this may require reducing project volume or advocating for additional registered engineering staff.
Engineer A retains the Chief Engineer sealing role and addresses the scale problem through enhanced internal quality control protocols — such as structured peer review among subordinate engineers, standardized design checklists, and documented sign-off procedures — treating these controls as a reasonable organizational substitute for his own detailed review given the firm's size and the demonstrated competence of his subordinates.
Engineer A determines that the firm's leadership will not support the structural changes necessary to make responsible charge achievable at the current project volume, and therefore relinquishes the chief engineer sealing authority — formally notifying firm leadership that the sealing role cannot be ethically discharged under current organizational conditions and that sealing authority must be redistributed among multiple registered engineers each capable of exercising genuine responsible charge over their respective domains.
Should Engineer A continue to seal plans he has not personally prepared or checked and reviewed in detail, relying on his confidence in subordinates' competence, or must he refuse to seal any document he has not personally verified through substantive review?
Engineer A's Sealing Practice: Whether to Continue Sealing Plans Without Detailed Personal Review
Decline to affix his seal to any plan he has not personally checked and reviewed in sufficient detail to form an independent professional judgment about its conformity to design intent, applicable standards, and public safety requirements — even if this slows firm output or requires reducing project volume.
Continue sealing plans based on his role-level contributions — setting design requirements, providing conceptual direction, and answering technical questions — treating these managerial inputs as constituting responsible charge sufficient for the chief engineer sealing function in a large organization.
Implement a mandatory checkpoint system requiring Engineer A to conduct a substantive review of each project at a defined completion milestone before sealing — accepting reduced firm throughput as the cost of genuine professional accountability while preserving the chief engineer sealing role.
Should Engineer A restructure the firm's sealing practice — by requiring registered engineer subordinates to affix their own seals to segments they personally prepare and invoking the Section II.2.c coordinating engineer model — or should he continue as the sole sealing engineer while relying on general supervision, accepting the ethical and legal consequences of that role?
Engineer A's Structural Response: Whether to Restructure the Firm's Sealing Architecture or Continue as Sole Sealing Engineer
Require each registered engineer subordinate to affix their own seal to the technical segments they personally prepare, restructuring Engineer A's role as a coordinating chief engineer under Section II.2.c — exercising responsible charge over project integration and coherence while segment-level professional accountability is formally attributed to the engineers with direct knowledge of the work.
Retain the current single-engineer sealing model, accepting full professional accountability for all sealed documents under the Professional Accountability principle, while advocating internally for enhanced review resources — additional staff, reduced project volume, or extended timelines — to make detailed review more feasible without restructuring the sealing architecture.
Refuse to continue holding the chief engineer sealing authority under organizational conditions that make responsible charge structurally impossible, compelling the firm to either adopt a distributed multi-engineer sealing model, reduce project volume, or assign sealing authority to multiple registered engineers each capable of exercising genuine responsible charge over their respective domains.
Should Engineer A apply a categorically more stringent standard — direct control and personal supervision — before sealing plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers, or should he apply the same general supervision standard he uses for registered engineer subordinates across all subordinate work regardless of licensure status?
Engineer A's Differentiated Duty: Whether to Apply a Heightened Standard When Sealing Plans Prepared by Non-Registered Graduate Engineers
Refuse to seal any plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers unless he can demonstrate direct control and personal supervision of that work — contemporaneous, granular oversight that functionally substitutes for the absent licensure of the subordinate — and advocate within the firm for staffing changes that make such supervision feasible at scale.
Apply the same general supervision standard — conceptual direction, design-requirement setting, and consultative input — to all subordinate work regardless of whether preparers are registered or non-registered, treating licensure status as a background credential rather than a factor that modifies the sealing engineer's review obligation.
Limit non-registered graduate engineers to tasks that do not require professional sealing — preliminary calculations, drafting support, data collection — and assign all work requiring a professional seal exclusively to registered engineer subordinates who can bear independent professional accountability for their segments, thereby eliminating the compounded risk scenario entirely.
Should Engineer A continue sealing plans based on his managerial oversight and confidence in subordinates' competence, implement a mandatory checkpoint review system requiring detailed personal review of each project before sealing, or decline to seal any document he has not personally reviewed in sufficient detail?
Engineer A, serving as Chief Engineer of a large firm, must decide how to discharge his sealing obligation given that organizational scale prevents him from conducting detailed design reviews of every plan he seals. The core tension is between the managerial responsible charge standard — which recognizes conceptual direction, design-requirement setting, and consultative input as legitimate chief-engineer contributions — and the detailed review sufficiency standard, which requires granular, document-level verification before a seal may be affixed as a substantive certification of personal professional judgment.
Engineer A implements a structured checkpoint system requiring him to conduct a substantive, detailed review of each project's completed plans — examining design calculations, specifications, and drawings for conformity to design intent and applicable standards — before affixing his seal, even if this reduces firm output or requires hiring additional registered engineers to share the review burden.
Engineer A continues sealing plans based on his upstream contributions — setting design requirements, providing conceptual direction, and answering technical questions — treating these managerial activities as constituting responsible charge sufficient for the chief engineer role, and relying on demonstrated subordinate competence as a reasonable professional basis for the seal.
Engineer A declines to serve as the sole sealing engineer and instead restructures the firm's sealing architecture so that registered engineer subordinates affix their own seals to the technical segments they personally prepare, while Engineer A seals only in a coordinating capacity under Section II.2.c for elements over which he has exercised genuine responsible charge at the integration and coherence level.
Should Engineer A apply a single uniform sealing standard to all subordinate work regardless of licensure status, or differentiate his practice by refusing to seal non-registered graduate engineers' plans unless he can exercise direct control and personal supervision over that work while applying a less stringent review standard to plans prepared by registered engineer subordinates?
Engineer A must decide whether to apply a uniform sealing standard across all subordinate work or to differentiate his sealing practice based on whether plan preparers are registered engineers or non-registered graduate engineers. When subordinates are registered, their independent licensure provides a residual professional accountability floor even absent Engineer A's detailed review. When subordinates are non-registered graduate engineers, no licensed professional judgment has been applied to the work at any stage prior to Engineer A's seal, triggering the NCEE Model Law's heightened 'direct control and personal supervision' standard and making the seal the sole professional certification of work that has received no independent professional-level verification.
Engineer A declines to seal any plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers unless he can demonstrate direct control and personal supervision of that specific work, while continuing to seal registered subordinates' plans subject to whatever review standard he can achieve — recognizing the categorical difference in public risk between the two scenarios and the NCEE Model Law's heightened standard for non-licensed subordinate work.
Engineer A applies the same general supervision standard — conceptual direction, design-requirement setting, and availability for technical consultation — uniformly to all subordinate work regardless of licensure status, treating demonstrated competence and internal quality controls as a sufficient professional basis for sealing in both cases and relying on the firm's institutionalized supervisory architecture.
Engineer A restructures the firm's staffing model so that non-registered graduate engineers are assigned only to projects where a registered engineer with sufficient supervisory capacity — not necessarily Engineer A himself — can exercise direct control and personal supervision over their work, distributing supervisory responsibility among multiple registered engineers rather than concentrating it in the chief engineer role.
Should Engineer A relinquish or restructure the Chief Engineer sealing role unless the firm redesigns its sealing architecture to make responsible charge achievable — for example through multi-engineer sealing or reduced project volume — or should he retain the role and discharge it through the managerial oversight activities he currently performs, treating those activities as constituting the responsible charge appropriate to a chief engineer's organizational position?
Engineer A faces a threshold decision about whether to accept and retain the Chief Engineer sealing role in an organization whose scale structurally prevents him from exercising responsible charge over all sealed documents. By analogy to BER Case 85-3 — which held that accepting a role one lacks the competence to fully discharge is itself an ethical violation — Engineer A's acceptance of a sealing authority role under conditions that make the discharge of that authority impossible may constitute an antecedent ethical breach that generates all downstream sealing violations. The question is whether Engineer A should have conditioned role acceptance on structural redesign of the firm's sealing architecture, or whether the managerial chief engineer role is itself a legitimate form of responsible charge that does not require the practical capacity for detailed review of every document.
Engineer A informs firm leadership that he will retain the chief engineer sealing role only if the firm restructures its sealing architecture to make responsible charge achievable — specifically by requiring registered engineer subordinates to affix their own seals to segments they prepare, reducing project volume, or distributing sealing authority among multiple registered engineers — and relinquishes the sealing role if the firm declines to restructure.
Engineer A retains the chief engineer sealing role and continues to discharge it through the managerial activities he currently performs — conceptual direction, design-requirement setting, and technical consultation — treating these contributions as constituting the form of responsible charge appropriate to a chief engineer's organizational position in a large firm, consistent with the view that the chief engineer role is a legitimate and recognized mode of professional oversight.
Engineer A retains the chief engineer role in a coordination capacity under Section II.2.c but immediately requires all registered engineer subordinates to affix their own seals to the technical segments they personally prepare, limiting Engineer A's seal to the project's integration and coordination function — for which his conceptual direction and design-requirement activities constitute genuine responsible charge — without waiting for firm-wide structural redesign.
Defining General Supervision Standard → Supervision Standard Institutionalized
Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard Invoked Against Engineer A Sealing Practice
Plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineer subordinates
Plans prepared by registered engineer subordinates
Engineer A seals plans prepared by both registered and non-registered engineers without giving a detailed review or check of the design, which falls below the ethical standard requiring 'some detail' of checking and review before sealing — regardless of general supervisory involvement during design development.
The standard requires more than conceptual involvement, answering technical questions, and reviewing project status; it requires the sealing engineer to actually check and review the documents in some detail before affixing the seal. Engineer A's admitted inability to perform detailed review means his sealing practice does not satisfy this standard.
Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.
The principle is not balanced away by organizational scale or workload; the ethical obligation to review in detail before sealing is non-negotiable regardless of firm size or the number of concurrent projects.
Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design
He believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired
Direct Control and Personal Supervision Obligation for Non-Registered Subordinate Work
Non-Registered Graduate Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparers
The Board held that when work is performed by non-registered graduate engineers, the firm has an ethical obligation to ensure that work is performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who will seal the document — non-registered subordinates cannot operate without a registered engineer exercising genuine responsible charge over their specific work.
The ethical obligation intensifies when subordinates are non-registered: the registered engineer sealing their work must exercise direct control and personal supervision, not merely general managerial oversight, because the public protection rationale of licensure requires a licensed engineer to stand genuinely behind every sealed document.
Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition
whereas in the instant case the work is being performed by individuals who are not licensed professional engineers, the firm has an ethical obligation that this work be performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the document.
For non-registered subordinates, the standard of supervision is heightened relative to registered subordinates; the chief engineer's managerial standard must be supplemented by direct control at the level of the registered engineer who will seal the non-registered subordinate's work.
Dual-Mode Seal Authorization Principle Applied to Engineer A Sealing of Non-Registered Graduate Engineers
Plans prepared by Non-Registered Graduate Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparers
Engineer A seals plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers — a practice that is permissible in principle under the supervisory direction-and-control mode of sealing, but only when the sealing engineer exercises genuine responsible charge. Engineer A's general supervision satisfies the structural form of this mode but not its substantive content.
The Dual-Mode principle confirms that sealing plans prepared by non-registered engineers is not categorically prohibited, but it imposes distinct oversight obligations — specifically, the detailed review requirement — that Engineer A does not fulfill.
At times Engineer A also seals plans prepared by non-registered, graduate engineers working under his general supervision.
The permissibility of sealing non-registered engineers' work is conditioned on adequate supervision; Engineer A's practice satisfies the structural condition (non-registered engineers work under his direction) but fails the substantive condition (detailed review before sealing).
Engineer A also seals plans prepared by non-registered, graduate engineers working under his general supervision
Engineer A BER Case 85-3 Cross-Domain Analogical Sealing Competence Application
Board applying Case 85-3 precedent regarding qualification prerequisites to Engineer A's different but related sealing practice issue
BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
The Board was constrained to apply Case 85-3 analogically to Engineer A's situation — acknowledging factual dissimilarities (Case 85-3 involved lack of qualifications; Engineer A's case involves inadequate review process) while recognizing that the same Code provisions (II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c) govern both situations and that Case 85-3 has bearing on the current analysis.
BER Case 85-3; BER Case 94-8 Discussion; NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c
Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's case
Engineer A CADD Supervisory Direction-and-Control Seal Authorization Constraint
Engineer A's general direction practice — establishing concepts, reviewing progress, answering questions — does not meet the direction-and-control standard required to authorize sealing of subordinate-prepared plans.
CADD Supervisory Direction-and-Control Seal Authorization Constraint
Engineer A may seal plans prepared by subordinate engineers only when he has exercised genuine direction and control — including outlining solution guidelines, making or directly supervising all engineering decisions, and conducting a detailed substantive review — not merely general direction and consultative input.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; CADD Document Sealing Practice norms
affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans
Throughout Engineer A's practice of sealing plans prepared by registered and non-registered subordinates
By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses.
Engineer A CADD Supervisory Seal Detailed Review Sufficiency Constraint
Engineer A's practice of reviewing 'elements of the design or project status as the design progresses' without detailed review of the final documents falls below the sufficiency threshold for supervisory sealing.
CADD Supervisory Seal Detailed Review Sufficiency Constraint
Engineer A must have checked and reviewed plans prepared by subordinate engineers in sufficient detail — more than general supervision or cursory progress review — before sealing; confidence in subordinates' abilities and general oversight of project status does not satisfy this standard.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; CADD Document Sealing Practice Standard
Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.
Each instance of Engineer A affixing his seal to subordinate-prepared plans
Engineer A Case 85-3 Analogy Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite
The Board invoked Case 85-3 (chemical engineer as county surveyor) to establish that oversight roles still require domain competence, applying this principle to Engineer A's situation of sealing work across disciplines he may not fully command.
Engineer A (Chief Engineer); analogically, any engineer accepting an oversight role
Oversight Role Domain Competence Prerequisite Obligation
By analogy to Case 85-3, Engineer A was obligated to recognize that accepting a chief engineer role requiring oversight of technical segments across multiple disciplines requires domain competence sufficient to evaluate the work being overseen, and that organizational authority alone does not substitute for technical competence in the oversight domain.
in the recent Case 85-3 where an engineer with experience and background solely in the field of chemical engineering accepted a position as a county surveyor, we noted that although the duties of the position included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement but did not include actual preparation of engineering and surveying documents, nevertheless the engineer was unethical in accepting the position
At the time of accepting and continuing in the chief engineer role
In the present case there is no indication that Engineer A possesses all of the qualifications or the experience to perform all of the requisite services
Engineer A Case 85-3 Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite Cross-Context Application
Case 85-3 Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite Cross-Context Application Capability
Engineer A lacked the capability to apply the Case 85-3 oversight-role competence prerequisite principle to his own situation as chief engineer sealing plans across multiple technical disciplines, failing to recognize that the principle — that oversight roles require domain competence for the work being overseen — applied to his multi-discipline sealing practice
Engineer A's acceptance and continuation of chief engineer role with broad sealing authority across multiple technical disciplines in a large firm
Accepting and continuing in a chief engineer role requiring oversight and sealing of plans across multiple technical disciplines without ensuring he possessed the qualifications and experience for all requisite services
Engineer A Case 85-3 Oversight Role Domain Competence Prerequisite Analogical Application
Board distinguishing Engineer A's case from Case 85-3 while applying the same underlying Code provisions — Engineer A has qualifications but insufficient review process, unlike Case 85-3 engineer who lacked qualifications entirely
Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background Minimum Threshold Constraint
By analogy to Case 85-3, Engineer A was constrained to possess at minimum some substantive qualifications and experience in each technical domain for which he sealed documents — the case distinguishes Engineer A's situation (adequate qualifications, insufficient review process) from Case 85-3 (inadequate qualifications), but the underlying competence prerequisite constraint applies to both.
BER Case 85-3; NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
Throughout Engineer A's acceptance and performance of chief engineer role
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing
Engineer A described his role as 'general direction and supervision' limited to establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing elements of design, and answering technical questions — but did not conduct detailed reviews of the plans he sealed.
Chief Engineer Managerial Role Responsible Charge Minimum Engagement Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, as chief engineer, to be involved at the outset of each project in establishing design concepts and requirements, to review design elements as projects developed, and to be available for technical consultation — as minimum conditions for exercising responsible charge and sealing project documents.
the chief engineer should be involved at the outset of the project in the establishment of the design concept and the design requirements, as well as in the review of the various elements of the design or project status as the project develops
Throughout the lifecycle of each project whose documents Engineer A sealed
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Sealing Authorization
Large engineering firm where chief engineer seals documents prepared by subordinate registered and non-registered engineers
Chief Engineer Managerial Role Minimum Engagement Sealing Authorization Constraint
Engineer A's sealing of project documents was constrained to require, at minimum: involvement at project outset in establishing design concepts and requirements, review of design elements as projects develop, and availability for technical consultation — the minimum engagement threshold for the chief engineer managerial model of responsible charge.
NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
Throughout Engineer A's tenure as chief engineer
In addition, the chief engineer should be available to consult on technical questions relating to the project design.
We recognize that the role of the chief engineer in an engineering firm may be that of a 'manager who provides guidance, direction, and counsel to those within his responsible charge.'
Engineer A Chief Engineer Project Inception Involvement Responsible Charge
Chief Engineer Project Inception Involvement Responsible Charge Capability
Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to fulfill the chief engineer responsible charge minimum standard — involvement at project outset in design concepts and requirements, developmental review, and availability for technical consultation — instead providing only general direction without the required substantive project-inception engagement
Engineer A serving as chief engineer of a large firm with numerous concurrent projects, sealing plans prepared by subordinates
Self-described practice of general direction and supervision without evidence of project-inception involvement in design concept establishment, developmental review, or technical consultation availability across the large volume of concurrent projects
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (registered)', 'position': 'Chief Engineer', 'firm_size': 'Large engineering firm', 'supervision_style': 'General direction and supervision (concept, design requirements, progress review, technical consultation)', 'review_depth': 'General — no detailed review or check of designs'}
Engineer A is the Chief Engineer of a large firm who affixes his seal to plans prepared by both registered and non-registered graduate engineers working under his general direction, without performing detailed review or check of the designs, relying instead on confidence in his subordinates' abilities.
{'type': 'seals_work_of', 'target': 'Non-Registered Graduate Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparers'}
{'type': 'seals_work_of', 'target': 'Registered Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparers'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Non-Registered Graduate Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparers'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Registered Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparers'}
Engineer A is the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm, and affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction
Engineer A Competence-Trust Substitution for Verification
Ongoing — reflects Engineer A's sincere but potentially mistaken professional belief
He believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision
Competence-Trust Substitution for Verification State
Engineer A's belief that confidence in subordinates satisfies responsible charge requirements
Ethics ruling clarifying that personal review cannot be substituted by trust in subordinates
Engineer A's formation of the belief that hiring competent engineers discharges his personal review obligation
Engineer A Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard Violation
Engineer A's self-described supervisory practice of establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing design elements as the project progresses, and answering technical questions does not constitute the detailed review required before sealing.
Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard for Supervisory Sealing Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to conduct a detailed, substantive review and check of plans prepared by subordinate registered and non-registered engineers as a prerequisite to sealing those plans, recognizing that general direction and supervision alone — without detailed review — is insufficient to satisfy the responsible charge requirement.
Prior to each act of affixing his professional seal to subordinate-prepared plans
Engineer A is consulted about technical questions and he provides answers and direction in these matters.
Engineer A Direction-and-Control Definitional Precision
Direction-and-Control Definitional Precision Capability
Engineer A lacked the capability to correctly apply the NCEE Model Law definition of responsible charge — direct control and personal supervision — as distinct from his self-described practice of general direction and supervision, resulting in sealing plans without meeting the profession-specific standard
Engineer A's characterization of his supervisory role as chief engineer and his sealing of subordinate-prepared plans
Self-description of practice as 'general direction and supervision' rather than the direct control and personal supervision required by the NCEE Model Law endorsed by the Board
responsible charge--the term 'responsible charge' as used in this act shall mean 'direct control and personal supervision of engineering work.'
The term 'direction' is generally defined by Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981 ed.) as 'guidance or supervision of action or conduct; management; a channel or direct course of thought or action.'
Engineer A Direction-and-Control Plain-Language Completeness Standard Sealing
Engineer A's self-described practice of general direction — establishing concepts, reviewing progress, answering questions — evaluated against the plain-language and regulatory definitions of direction and control
Direction-and-Control Plain-Language Completeness Standard Constraint
The plain-language meaning of 'direction and control' as used in Section II.2.b constrains Engineer A to a level of involvement approaching performance of all tasks related to document preparation — a baseline that Engineer A's general direction practice did not meet, with the NCEE Model Law 'direct control and personal supervision' standard providing the operative professional threshold.
NSPE Code Section II.2.b; Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981 ed.); NCEE Model Law
Throughout Engineer A's sealing practice
It is clear that 'direction' and 'control' have a meaning which, when combined, would suggest that an engineer would be required to perform all tasks related to the preparation of the drawings, plans, and specifications in order for the engineer to ethically affix his seal.
The word 'control' is generally defined as 'the authority to guide or manage; direction, regulation, and coordination of business activities.'
Engineer A Full Professional Responsibility Assumption Upon Sealing Constraint
Engineer A seals plans without detailed review, yet the act of sealing imposes full professional accountability for the technical integrity of those plans regardless of who prepared them.
Full Professional Responsibility Assumption Upon Sealing Constraint
When Engineer A affixes his seal to plans prepared by subordinate registered or non-registered engineers, he assumes full professional responsibility for the entire work product and cannot disclaim that responsibility on the basis that subordinates prepared the work or that he had confidence in their abilities.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2.b, II.2.c; Engineer Stamped Document Responsibility Standard
Upon each act of sealing subordinate-prepared plans
Engineer A General Direction Non-Equivalence Responsible Charge Sealing Authorization
Engineer A's self-described supervisory practice evaluated against the responsible charge standard
General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Sealing Authorization Constraint
Engineer A's practice of general direction — establishing design concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing progress elements, and answering technical questions — did not satisfy the direction-and-control standard required for responsible charge and did not authorize him to affix his professional seal to plans prepared by subordinates under such general direction.
NSPE Code Section II.2.b; NCEE Model Law; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
In one of the most important aspects of the language of those provisions is the reference to 'direction and control' found in Section II.2.b.
Throughout Engineer A's sealing practice as chief engineer
Engineer A General Direction Non-Equivalence Sealing Authorization Constraint
Engineer A defines his supervisory practice as conceptual and consultative engagement, which the BER determines falls short of the responsible charge standard required before sealing.
Engineer A's self-described practice of general direction and supervision — establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing progress elements, and answering technical questions — does not satisfy the direction-and-control standard required to authorize sealing of plans prepared by others.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; NCEE Model Law; Webster's definitions of 'direction' and 'control'
Throughout Engineer A's practice as Chief Engineer
Engineer A General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Violation
Engineer A explicitly defines his supervisory involvement as concept establishment, design requirements setting, progress-based element review, and technical Q&A — a definition that falls below the detailed review and check required for responsible charge — yet treats this involvement as sufficient justification for sealing.
General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Sealing Prerequisite Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his self-described practice of general direction and supervision — establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing design elements as the project progresses, and answering technical questions — does not satisfy the responsible charge standard required as a prerequisite for sealing engineering documents, and to refrain from sealing plans on the basis of this level of involvement alone.
Throughout Engineer A's tenure as Chief Engineer, each time he sealed plans based solely on his general direction and supervision involvement
Engineer A General Direction vs Responsible Charge Distinction Deficit
General Direction vs Responsible Charge Substantive Distinction Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to distinguish between his self-described 'general direction and supervision' practice and the detailed review required for responsible charge sealing, incorrectly believing his involvement in concept establishment, design requirements, and progress review satisfied the responsible charge standard.
Engineer A as Chief Engineer sealing plans prepared by both registered and non-registered engineers in a large firm, where he described his involvement as conceptual and directional rather than involving detailed review of the actual plans.
Engineer A's self-description of his supervisory practice as 'general direction and supervision' — establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing design elements and project status — which he incorrectly equated with responsible charge sufficient to justify sealing subordinate plans.
He believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision.
Engineer A General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review
Ongoing throughout Engineer A's Chief Engineer tenure
By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses
General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review State
Engineer A's supervisory practice — conceptual direction and consultative input without detailed design verification
Ethics ruling requiring detailed review, or Engineer A's voluntary adoption of more rigorous review protocols
Engineer A is consulted about technical questions and he provides answers and direction in these matters
Engineer A's adoption of a general supervision model as the basis for responsible charge
Engineer A Insufficient Responsible Charge
Ongoing throughout Engineer A's tenure as Chief Engineer in the large firm
Registered engineers working under Engineer A
Engineer A's practice of sealing plans without detailed design review
Not terminated — state is ongoing and persistent
Engineer A's assumption of Chief Engineer role with responsibility for sealing plans across a large volume of concurrent projects
Engineer A NCEE Model Law Direct Control Personal Supervision Responsible Charge Standard
Chief engineer sealing plans prepared by subordinates under general direction in a large engineering firm
Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
The NCEE Model Law definition of responsible charge as 'direct control and personal supervision of engineering work' constrains Engineer A's sealing practice to require direct control and personal supervision — a standard that Engineer A's general direction model did not satisfy.
NCEE Model Law — Responsible Charge Definition; NSPE Code Section II.2.b
the National Council of Engineering Examiners Model Law, which is endorsed by this Board and reads as follows: responsible charge--the term 'responsible charge' as used in this act shall mean 'direct control and personal supervision of engineering work.'
Engineer A Non-Registered Engineer Seal Delegation
Ongoing — part of Engineer A's standard practice
Non-Registered Engineer Seal Delegation State
Engineer A sealing plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers
Non-registered graduate engineers preparing plans under Engineer A's general supervision
Engineer A Non-Registered Engineer Sealing Direct Supervision Prerequisite Constraint
Engineer A seals plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers under only general supervision, without the direct control and personal supervision required given their non-licensed status.
Non-Registered Engineer Subordinate Sealing Direct Supervision Prerequisite Constraint
Engineer A may not affix his seal to plans prepared by non-registered, graduate engineers unless he has provided direct control and personal supervision — not merely general supervision — over the preparation of that work.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2.b, II.2.c; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard; NCEE Model Law
Whenever Engineer A seals plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers
Engineer A Non-Registered Subordinate Direct Control Personal Supervision Sealing Prerequisite
Non-Registered Subordinate Direct Control Personal Supervision Sealing Prerequisite Capability
Engineer A and his firm lacked the capability to ensure that work performed by non-registered graduate engineers was performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the documents, instead relying on general direction without the required direct control
Non-registered graduate engineers preparing engineering plans under Engineer A's general supervision in a large firm
Sealing plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers without ensuring those engineers worked under direct control and personal supervision of a registered engineer, contrary to the firm's ethical obligation
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Capability Deficit
Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Self-Calibration Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the size of his organization and the large number of concurrent projects did not constitute ethical justification for sealing plans without detailed review, instead treating organizational scale as a legitimate excuse for inadequate responsible charge.
Chief Engineer of a large firm with a large number of concurrent projects, finding it 'impossible' to give detailed review and treating this impossibility as ethical justification rather than as a problem requiring structural remedy.
Engineer A's explicit reliance on the impossibility of detailed review due to organizational size and project volume as a justification for his sealing practice, rather than recognizing this as a structural problem requiring organizational redesign.
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Sealing
Engineer A rationalized his failure to conduct detailed reviews by citing the size of his organization and the volume of concurrent projects — a rationalization the Board rejected as ethically insufficient.
Organizational Scale Non-Excuse for Responsible Charge Review Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using the size of his organization and the volume of concurrent projects as justification for sealing plans without having conducted a detailed review, recognizing that organizational scale is a self-imposed condition that does not diminish the responsible charge requirement.
In a large engineering firm this role is crucial to the successful operation of the firm
Throughout Engineer A's practice as chief engineer of the large firm
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Sealing Constraint
Engineer A is Chief Engineer of a large firm, sealing plans prepared by registered and non-registered engineers, and finds detailed review impossible due to organizational scale — which he incorrectly treats as a valid excuse.
Organizational Scale Responsible Charge Non-Excuse Constraint
Engineer A cannot use the size of his organization and the large number of concurrent projects as justification for sealing plans without conducting the detailed review and check required for responsible charge.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; NCEE Model Law definition of responsible charge as 'direct control and personal supervision'
Throughout Engineer A's practice as Chief Engineer sealing subordinate-prepared plans
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Violation
Engineer A explicitly cites the size of his organization and the large number of concurrent projects as the reason he finds it impossible to conduct detailed reviews, treating this organizational condition as an ethical and legal justification for his sealing practice.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using the size of his organization and the large number of concurrent projects as a justification for sealing plans without detailed review, and instead to restructure his workload, delegate sealing authority to qualified subordinate engineers who conduct detailed reviews, or decline to seal documents he has not adequately reviewed.
Throughout Engineer A's tenure as Chief Engineer of the large firm
Engineer A Organizational Scale Preventing Adequate Review
Ongoing — structural feature of the organization
Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design
Organizational Scale Preventing Adequate Supervisory Review State
The large firm's project volume making detailed review impossible for Engineer A
Organizational restructuring or reduction in project volume
Growth of the engineering firm to a size where concurrent project volume exceeds Chief Engineer's detailed review capacity
Engineer A Out-of-Competence County Surveyor
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Chemical engineering', 'position_accepted': 'County Surveyor', 'competence_gap': 'No experience in surveying or highway improvement'}
Referenced from Case 85-3: an engineer with background solely in chemical engineering accepted a position as county surveyor, whose duties included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement — outside the engineer's area of competence — and was found to have acted unethically in accepting the position.
{'type': 'referenced_precedent_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor'}
Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
in the recent Case 85-3 where an engineer with experience and background solely in the field of chemical engineering accepted a position as a county surveyor
Engineer A Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work
Engineer A seals plans prepared by both registered and non-registered engineers under his general direction, implicitly accepting accountability through the act of sealing while simultaneously disclaiming the detailed review that would make that accountability meaningful.
Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to accept full professional accountability for the quality, accuracy, and regulatory compliance of plans prepared by subordinate registered and non-registered engineers under his direction, recognizing that delegation of preparation tasks does not diminish his professional responsibility for the outcome — and that this accountability requires, not merely permits, detailed review before sealing.
Engineer A affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans.
Each instance of sealing subordinate-prepared plans throughout Engineer A's tenure as Chief Engineer
Engineer A Registered vs Non-Registered Subordinate Sealing Differentiation
Registered vs Non-Registered Subordinate Sealing Obligation Differentiation Capability
Engineer A failed to differentiate between his sealing obligations for plans prepared by registered subordinate engineers versus non-registered graduate engineers, applying the same inadequate general-direction standard to both categories despite the heightened responsible charge obligations that attach to sealing work by non-registered personnel who cannot independently certify their own work.
Chief Engineer who seals plans from both registered engineers (who do not affix their own seals) and non-registered graduate engineers, treating both categories identically under his general direction standard.
Engineer A's uniform application of his 'general direction and supervision' standard to both registered engineers and non-registered graduate engineers, without recognizing any differential obligation arising from the non-registered status of some subordinates.
Engineer A is the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm, and affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans.
Engineer A Resource Constraint — Organizational Scale Review Impossibility
Engineer A explicitly acknowledges the impossibility of detailed review due to organizational scale, treating this as a justification rather than recognizing it as a constraint on how many documents he may ethically seal.
The size of Engineer A's organization and the volume of concurrent projects create a practical resource constraint that makes detailed review of all sealed plans impossible — but this resource constraint does not relax the ethical and regulatory sealing standard; it instead constrains the permissible scope of Engineer A's sealing practice.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; organizational capacity limitations
Engineer A Responsible Charge Active Engagement Deficit
Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
Engineer A failed to maintain the active, substantive engagement required for responsible charge, limiting his involvement to conceptual direction and progress review rather than the detailed review and check of actual plans that the responsible charge standard demands before sealing.
Chief Engineer who is consulted on technical questions and provides direction but does not conduct detailed review of the actual plans before sealing them.
Engineer A's description of his involvement as establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing design elements and project status, and answering technical questions — all of which fall short of the detailed review and check required for responsible charge sealing.
Engineer A Responsible Charge Active Engagement Sealing Constraint
Engineer A's consultative and conceptual engagement with subordinate work falls short of the active engagement standard required for responsible charge sealing authorization.
Responsible Charge Active Engagement Constraint
Engineer A must be actively engaged in the engineering process — personally making or directly supervising all engineering decisions — before sealing plans prepared by subordinate engineers; reviewing progress elements and answering technical questions does not constitute the active engagement required.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778; NCEE Model Law
Throughout Engineer A's practice of sealing subordinate-prepared plans
Engineer A Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation Violation
Engineer A's general direction and supervision — limited to concept establishment, design requirements, progress reviews, and technical Q&A — does not constitute the active, substantive review required under responsible charge before sealing.
Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, as the engineer bearing statutory responsible charge over plans prepared by subordinate registered and non-registered engineers, to conduct an active, substantive, and technically adequate review of all deliverables sufficient to identify errors, omissions, and regulatory non-compliance before applying his professional seal.
Prior to each act of sealing subordinate-prepared engineering plans
Engineer A Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Violation
Engineer A is Chief Engineer of a large firm who seals plans prepared by both registered and non-registered graduate engineers without conducting a detailed review or check of the design, citing organizational size and project volume as justification.
Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, before affixing his professional seal to plans prepared by registered and non-registered engineers under his supervision, to conduct a detailed review or check of the design sufficient to constitute responsible charge — and to refrain from sealing those plans on the basis of general direction and supervision alone.
Each instance of sealing plans prepared by subordinate engineers throughout Engineer A's tenure as Chief Engineer
Engineer A Responsible Charge Direct Control Non-Registered Subordinate Sealing
Engineer A's firm employed non-registered graduate engineers who prepared engineering plans; Engineer A sealed those plans based on general direction and supervision rather than direct control and personal supervision.
Engineer A (Chief Engineer) and the engineering firm
Responsible Charge Direct Control Personal Supervision Non-Registered Work Sealing Obligation
Engineer A and his firm were obligated to ensure that work performed by non-registered graduate engineers was performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the resulting documents, rather than under Engineer A's general direction alone.
whereas in the instant case the work is being performed by individuals who are not licensed professional engineers, the firm has an ethical obligation that this work be performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the document
At the time of preparation and sealing of each document prepared by non-registered graduate engineers
Engineer A Responsible Charge Direction Control Definition Application
Engineer A described his supervisory role in terms that the Board found constituted general direction rather than the direct control and personal supervision required by the NCEE Model Law definition of responsible charge.
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his self-described 'general direction and supervision' — establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing design elements, and answering technical questions — did not satisfy the 'direct control and personal supervision' standard of responsible charge required as a prerequisite for sealing engineering documents.
At the time of sealing each document prepared by subordinate engineers
It is clear that 'direction' and 'control' have a meaning which, when combined, would suggest that an engineer would be required to perform all tasks related to the preparation of the drawings, plans, and specifications in order for the engineer to ethically affix his seal
Engineer A Responsible Charge Standard Clarification Active
At the time of the case analysis — the standard governing what constitutes sufficient supervisory engagement for sealing purposes is the operative normative framework
Responsible Charge Standard Clarification Active State
The normative question of what 'responsible charge' requires when a Chief Engineer seals plans in a large organization
Ethics ruling or regulatory clarification resolving the standard
Engineer A's practice of general supervision without detailed review raises the question of whether this satisfies responsible charge
Engineer A Responsible Charge Verification Sealing Constraint
Engineer A's sealing practice lacks the substantive verification required by the responsible charge standard, as he cannot conduct detailed review given organizational scale.
Engineer A must have exercised active, substantive review and direction over plans prepared by subordinate engineers sufficient to establish genuine responsible charge before affixing his seal; sealing documents reviewed only through general progress oversight and technical Q&A is prohibited.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; NCEE Model Law responsible charge definition
Each instance of Engineer A sealing subordinate-prepared plans
Engineer A Seal Affixation Professional Judgment Certification Failure
Engineer A affixed his seal to plans he had not reviewed in detail, treating the seal as an organizational authorization rather than a certification of personal professional judgment.
Seal and Signature Professional Judgment Certification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that affixing his seal to plans prepared by subordinates constituted a certification of his professional judgment and discretion over those plans, and therefore to refrain from sealing documents over which he had not exercised such judgment through detailed review.
the conduct of the engineer in the preparation of the plans and drawings involves the professional judgment and discretion of the engineer-judgment and discretion which are shaped by a variety of ethical concerns
the signature and seal of the engineer has consequences which go beyond the issue of ethics
Engineer A Seal Affixation Professional Judgment Ethical Certification
Chief engineer sealing plans prepared by subordinates, with the Board emphasizing that sealing involves professional judgment and discretion beyond mere legal consequences
Engineer A's act of affixing his professional seal to plans prepared by subordinates constituted a certification of his professional judgment and discretion — judgment shaped by ethical concerns — constraining him from treating the seal as an administrative act separable from substantive professional engagement with the work product.
the conduct of the engineer in the preparation of the plans and drawings involves the professional judgment and discretion of the engineer-judgment and discretion which are shaped by a variety of ethical concerns.
Each instance of Engineer A affixing his professional seal
the rationale behind those rules lies in the recognition that while the signature and seal of the engineer has consequences which go beyond the issue of ethics
Engineer A Seal Professional Judgment Certification Scope Self-Recognition
Seal Professional Judgment Certification Scope Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that affixing his seal to plans prepared by subordinates constituted a certification of his professional judgment and discretion shaped by ethical concerns — treating the seal as an administrative act of approval rather than a substantive professional judgment certification requiring responsible charge
Engineer A's sealing practice across plans prepared by subordinate engineers in a large firm
Sealing plans prepared by both registered and non-registered subordinates based on confidence in their competence rather than on the exercise of professional judgment through responsible charge review
Engineer A Sealed Document Completeness Pre-Certification Self-Assessment Deficit
Sealed Document Completeness Pre-Certification Self-Assessment Capability
Engineer A failed to conduct the rigorous pre-certification self-assessment required before sealing plans, proceeding to seal documents without verifying through detailed review that they met professional adequacy standards, relying instead on general directional involvement and confidence in subordinates.
Chief Engineer sealing plans prepared by subordinates without conducting the detailed review that would constitute genuine pre-certification assessment of document adequacy.
Engineer A's acknowledgment that he finds it 'impossible' to give detailed review before sealing, yet continues to affix his seal — demonstrating failure to conduct the substantive pre-certification self-assessment that sealing requires.
Engineer A Section II.2.a Qualification Prerequisite Work Acceptance Sealing
Chief engineer of large firm accepting and sealing work across multiple technical disciplines
Section II.2.a constrained Engineer A to accept and seal work only in those areas of practice in which he possessed proper qualifications to competently perform the tasks — establishing a qualification prerequisite for both accepting work and affixing his seal.
NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
Section II.2.a. seeks to admonish the engineer to accept work only in those areas of practice in which the engineer possesses the proper qualifications in order to competently perform the tasks to which he is assigned.
Throughout Engineer A's acceptance of work and sealing practices
Engineer A Section II.2.b Cognizance Understanding Sealing Legal Responsibility
Chief engineer sealing plans prepared by registered and non-registered subordinates under general direction without detailed review
Section II.2.b constrained Engineer A to sign, seal, and assume legal responsibility only for engineering work in which he possessed genuine understanding and cognizance — prohibiting sealing of documents prepared by subordinates where his general direction did not produce the requisite understanding and cognizance of the work product.
NSPE Code Section II.2.b; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
Section II.2.b. examines the issue of ethical responsibility and states that an engineer must sign and seal documents and assume legal responsibility only for that in which he possesses understanding and cognizance.
Each instance of Engineer A signing and sealing documents prepared by subordinates
Engineer A Sections II.2.a II.2.b II.2.c Integrated Reading Application
The Board's analysis of Engineer A's sealing practices required simultaneous application of Sections II.2.a (competence), II.2.b (direction and control), and II.2.c (technical segment sealing hierarchy) as interdependent provisions.
Engineer A; NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Obligation
The Board was obligated to read Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c. as mutually dependent provisions in analyzing Engineer A's sealing practices, and Engineer A was obligated to comply with the integrated standard they collectively establish rather than treating any single provision as independently sufficient.
Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c. are mutually dependent Code provisions which must be read together in order for them to have meaning
Throughout the ethics analysis and in Engineer A's ongoing professional practice
Engineer A Sections II.2.a II.2.b II.2.c Mutually Dependent Integrated Reading Sealing
Chief engineer of large firm sealing plans prepared by registered and non-registered subordinates under general direction
Engineer A and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Sealing Constraint
Engineer A's sealing practices and the Board's analysis of them must be evaluated through the integrated reading of Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c as mutually dependent provisions — no single provision can be applied in isolation to determine whether Engineer A's sealing of delegated work was ethically permissible.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
Sections II.2.a., II.2.b., and II.2.c. address many of the issues related to the facts of this case.
Throughout Engineer A's sealing practice and the Board's ethical analysis
Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c. are mutually dependent Code provisions which must be read together in order for them to have meaning.
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Capability Deficit
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution for Personal Review Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that his confidence in the ability of the engineers he hired could not substitute for the detailed review and check of their plans required before affixing his professional seal, incorrectly treating trust in subordinate competence as equivalent to personal verification through detailed review.
Chief Engineer sealing plans prepared by both registered and non-registered engineers, relying on his hiring judgment and general confidence in subordinates rather than conducting the detailed review required by the responsible charge standard.
Engineer A's explicit statement that he believes he is ethically and legally correct in not conducting detailed review 'because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired,' directly substituting subordinate competence confidence for personal review.
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Sealing Constraint
Engineer A believes his confidence in hired engineers' abilities satisfies the responsible charge requirement, which the BER finds to be an ethical violation.
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution for Sealing Review Constraint
Engineer A cannot substitute his confidence in the professional abilities of the engineers he has hired for the detailed review and check required to establish responsible charge before affixing his seal.
Throughout Engineer A's practice of sealing plans prepared by subordinate engineers
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Sealing Review
Engineer A justified his sealing practice by citing his confidence in the ability of those he had hired, treating subjective trust in subordinate competence as equivalent to responsible charge.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from substituting his confidence in the ability of his subordinate engineers — whether registered or non-registered — for the detailed review and direct control required by responsible charge as a prerequisite to sealing their work.
Engineer A explicitly justifies his failure to conduct detailed reviews by citing his confidence in the ability of those he has hired
Section II.2.b. examines the issue of ethical responsibility and states that an engineer must sign and seal documents and assume legal responsibility only for that in which he possesses understanding and cognizance
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Sealing Review Responsible Charge
Engineer A's stated justification that he hired capable engineers and trusted their work as a substitute for detailed personal review before sealing
Engineer A's confidence in the professional abilities of his subordinate registered and non-registered engineers did not satisfy the direction-and-control standard required for responsible charge — Engineer A was constrained to conduct his own substantive technical engagement with the work product rather than substituting his judgment about subordinates' general reliability.
Rather, the issue here is the extent to which a professional engineer may ethically seal all of the documents the preparation of which he has delegated to subordinates.
the firm has an ethical obligation that this work be performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the document.
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Violation
Engineer A explicitly justifies his failure to conduct detailed reviews by citing his confidence in the ability of those he has hired, treating subjective trust in subordinate competence as a legally and ethically sufficient substitute for the responsible charge review standard.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from substituting his confidence in the ability of the engineers he has hired for the detailed review and check of the design that responsible charge requires before sealing their plans.
Each instance where Engineer A sealed plans without detailed review, relying instead on confidence in subordinate ability
Engineer A Supervisory Sealing Authority Structural Redesign Capability Deficit
Supervisory Sealing Authority Structural Redesign Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the organizational impossibility of conducting detailed reviews required a structural redesign of sealing authority — for example, by having registered subordinate engineers seal their own technical segments — rather than continuing to seal all plans himself without adequate review.
Chief Engineer of a large firm who acknowledges the impossibility of detailed review but continues sealing plans rather than redesigning the supervisory and sealing authority structure to match actual review capacity.
Engineer A's continuation of his sealing practice despite acknowledging it is 'impossible' to give detailed review, rather than restructuring the firm's sealing authority to ensure every sealed plan has received adequate responsible charge review from an engineer who actually conducted that review.
Engineer A Technical Segment Attribution and Exclusive Sealing Compliance
Technical Segment Attribution and Exclusive Sealing Compliance Capability
Engineer A failed to implement the Section II.2.c requirement that each technical segment be signed and sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared it, instead sealing all documents himself without ensuring subordinate registered engineers sealed their own segments
Engineer A's firm-wide sealing practice across multiple technical segments prepared by registered and non-registered subordinates
Sealing plans prepared by subordinate registered engineers without those engineers affixing their own seals to the segments they prepared, contrary to Section II.2.c
Section II.2.c. establishes a hierarchy of responsibility by which engineers may coordinate and assume responsibility for entire projects as long as those individuals under the engineer's responsible control are identified as having prepared each technical segment of the work.
Engineer A Technical Segment Qualified Preparer Exclusive Sealing Section II.2.c
Multi-engineer firm where chief engineer seals all documents including technical segments prepared by subordinate registered and non-registered engineers across multiple disciplines
Engineer A and subordinate registered engineers in the firm
Technical Segment Qualified Preparer Exclusive Sealing Constraint
Engineer A and the firm's subordinate registered engineers were constrained by Section II.2.c to ensure that each technical segment of project documents was signed and sealed exclusively by the qualified engineer who prepared that segment — prohibiting Engineer A from sealing all documents regardless of which subordinate prepared each technical segment.
NSPE Code Section II.2.c; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
we reiterate the language contained in Section II.2.c. noting that 'each technical segment [shall be] signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.'
Throughout the firm's project document preparation and sealing practices
Engineer A Technical Segment Sealing Without Qualified Preparer Attribution
Engineer A sealed plans prepared by both registered and non-registered engineers without those engineers sealing their own respective technical segments, contrary to Section II.2.c.'s hierarchy of responsibility.
Engineer A (Chief Engineer) and subordinate registered engineers
Technical Segment Qualified Preparer Exclusive Sealing Obligation
Engineer A and the subordinate registered engineers in his firm were obligated to ensure that each technical segment of project documents was signed and sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared that segment, rather than having Engineer A seal all documents regardless of which engineer prepared each segment.
we reiterate the language contained in Section II.2.c. noting that 'each technical segment [shall be] signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment'
At the time of sealing each technical segment of project documents
Section II.2.c. establishes a hierarchy of responsibility by which engineers may coordinate and assume responsibility for entire projects as long as those individuals under the engineer's responsible control are identified as having prepared each technical segment of the work
Engineer A Three-Provision Mutually Dependent Code Reading
Three-Provision Mutually Dependent Code Reading Capability
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to read NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c as mutually dependent provisions in analyzing his sealing practices, but failed to apply this integrated reading in his conduct as chief engineer
Engineer A's sealing of plans prepared by both registered and non-registered subordinate engineers in a large firm without adequate responsible charge review
Failure to integrate all three II.2 provisions when calibrating his sealing and supervision practices across registered and non-registered subordinates
State licensing boards and professional engineering societies
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Responsibility for Sealed Documents
Engineer Stamped Document Responsibility Standard
affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction
Engineer A believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired
Engineer A in asserting he is ethically and legally correct in his sealing practice
Establishes the ethical and legal weight of affixing a professional seal, including the ongoing responsibility the sealing engineer assumes for the correctness and safety of the sealed work, regardless of who prepared it
Engineering Firm Non-Registered Graduate Engineer Work Direct Control Personal Supervision Sealing Obligation
Large engineering firm employing non-registered graduate engineers whose work is sealed by chief engineer under general direction rather than direct control and personal supervision
Non-Registered Subordinate Work Direct Control Personal Supervision Sealing Constraint
The firm was constrained to ensure that all engineering work performed by non-registered graduate engineers was performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered professional engineers who would seal the resulting documents — general direction by the chief engineer was insufficient to satisfy this heightened supervision requirement for non-licensed subordinates.
NSPE Code Sections II.2.b, II.2.c; NCEE Model Law; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
Throughout the firm's employment and supervision of non-registered graduate engineers
Engineering Firm Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Review Sealing
Large engineering firm where organizational scale made detailed review of all sealed documents practically impossible for the chief engineer
The size of Engineer A's large engineering firm and the volume of concurrent projects did not constitute a valid justification for Engineer A's failure to conduct the detailed review required for responsible charge before affixing his seal — the firm was constrained to restructure to enable adequate review or refrain from sealing documents that had not received it.
NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c; NCEE Model Law; BER Case 94-8 Discussion
Indeed, in a large engineering firm this role is crucial to the successful operation of the firm.
Throughout the firm's operation under Engineer A as chief engineer
Engineering Firm Technical Segment Sealing Attribution Obligation Constraint
The firm's practice of routing all sealing through Engineer A as Chief Engineer, regardless of who prepared each technical segment, creates a structural responsible charge violation.
Engineering Firm (Engineer A's organization)
Technical Segment Sealing Attribution Obligation State
The engineering firm must ensure that each discrete technical segment of project documents is sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared or directly supervised preparation of that segment, rather than having a single chief engineer seal all documents regardless of their involvement in each segment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2.b, II.2.c; NCEE Model Law
Throughout all multi-engineer project document production
Engineering Intern Supervision - Direct Control and Personal Supervision Norm
Professional norms governing supervision of unlicensed subordinates performing engineering design work
Applied to the situation where work is performed by individuals who are not licensed professional engineers, establishing the firm's ethical obligation to ensure such work is performed under direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the document
Professional Standards for Supervision of Non-Registered Graduate Engineers
Engineer A in assessing whether his general supervision of non-registered graduate engineers is sufficient to justify sealing their plans
Defines the required scope and depth of supervision a licensed PE must provide to non-registered, graduate engineers before sealing their work, directly at issue given Engineer A's admission that he cannot give detailed review or check of the design
State Engineering Licensure Statutes Governing Sealing and Responsible Charge
Engineer A believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so
Engineer A in asserting legal correctness of his sealing practice
Provides the legal framework defining 'responsible charge,' 'general supervision,' and the legal requirements for when a PE may seal plans prepared by others, directly relevant to Engineer A's claim that he is legally correct in his practice
General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review — Engineer A (Discussion Elaboration)
Duration of projects where Engineer A relied on confidence in subordinates rather than personal verification
Engineer A's supervisory engagement pattern — establishing design concepts, reviewing progress elements, answering technical questions — without conducting sufficiently detailed review of each document before sealing
Engineer A adopting practices that satisfy the Board's clarified standard for responsible charge
the conduct of the engineer in the preparation of the plans and drawings involves the professional judgment and discretion of the engineer
Engineer A's adoption of a high-level managerial approach to responsible charge in a large firm context
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Reading in Responsible Charge Analysis
Engineer A Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor's practice of sealing documents prepared by subordinates
Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
The Board's analysis of Engineer A's sealing practices required simultaneous application of Sections II.2.a (competence), II.2.b (direction and control), and II.2.c (technical segment attribution), treating them as mutually dependent provisions that gain meaning only when read together.
No single code provision — competence, direction and control, or segment attribution — can resolve the ethical question in isolation; all three must be applied conjunctively to define the full scope of the chief engineer's sealing obligations.
The provisions are not in conflict but are complementary; integrated reading produces a coherent standard rather than requiring prioritization of one over another.
NCEE Model Law - Responsible Charge Definition
National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE)
National Council of Engineering Examiners Model Law
Cited as the authoritative regulatory definition of 'responsible charge' meaning 'direct control and personal supervision of engineering work,' used to establish the minimum supervisory threshold an engineer must meet before ethically sealing documents prepared by subordinates
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision
Engineer A in justifying his sealing practice
Governs Engineer A's ethical obligations when affixing his seal to plans prepared by others under his general direction and supervision, including both registered and non-registered engineers; establishes the standard of care required before sealing documents
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c
Section II.2.a. seeks to admonish the engineer to accept work only in those areas of practice in which the engineer possesses the proper qualifications
Section II.2.c. establishes a hierarchy of responsibility by which engineers may coordinate and assume responsibility for entire projects
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in deliberation
Primary normative authority governing engineer qualification to accept work, obligation to sign and seal only work within cognizance, and hierarchy of responsible charge for delegated technical segments
Non-Licensed Subordinate Work Requiring Registered Engineer Direct Supervision — Firm Obligation
Duration of projects where non-registered engineers perform technical work within the firm
Engineering firm's ethical obligation when technical work is performed by non-licensed (non-PE) engineers who cannot independently seal documents
All technical work performed by or under direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who seal the resulting documents
Firm's reliance on non-registered engineers to prepare technical segments that must ultimately be sealed
{'license': 'None (non-registered graduate engineers)', 'sealing_practice': 'Cannot affix own seal; work sealed by Chief Engineer', 'supervision_received': 'General supervision from Chief Engineer'}
Graduate engineers without professional registration who prepare engineering plans under Engineer A's general supervision; their work is sealed by Engineer A.
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor'}
{'type': 'work_sealed_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor'}
Non-Registered Graduate Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparer
Non-Registered Work Enters Public Record
Precedent Standard Activated → Ethics Violation Determination Reached
Professional Accountability Invoked for Engineer A Organizational Scale Rationalization
Engineer A's sealing practice across large-firm concurrent projects
Engineer A rationalizes his failure to conduct detailed reviews by citing the size of his organization and the volume of concurrent projects — effectively treating organizational scale as a defense against individual professional accountability. Professional accountability requires that engineers take responsibility for their sealed documents regardless of organizational pressures.
Organizational scale and workload volume are not ethical defenses for failing to meet the review standard associated with responsible charge. Engineer A must restructure his practice rather than rationalize non-compliance.
Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design. He believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision.
Professional accountability is not balanced away by organizational demands; the obligation to take responsibility for sealed documents is personal and non-delegable.
He believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Sealing Without Adequate Review
All sealed engineering plans released to clients and the public
The public relies on the professional seal as a guarantee of technical adequacy reviewed by a licensed engineer. Engineer A's practice of sealing plans without detailed review undermines this public protection function, exposing the public to engineering designs that have not been independently verified by the certifying professional.
The public welfare rationale for the sealing requirement is that it provides a quality assurance checkpoint by a licensed professional who can be held accountable. When the sealing engineer has not reviewed the plans in detail, this public protection function is hollow.
Public welfare is paramount; organizational efficiency cannot override the public protection function of the professional seal.
Is it ethical for Engineer A to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or which he has not checked and reviewed in detail?
Does the ethical analysis change depending on whether the subordinate plan preparers are registered engineers versus non-registered graduate engineers, and if so, what distinct obligations does Engineer A bear in each case?
Should the engineering firm itself bear independent ethical responsibility for structuring its operations in a way that makes adequate responsible charge review impossible for Engineer A, rather than placing the entire ethical burden on Engineer A alone?
What affirmative restructuring steps is Engineer A ethically obligated to take — such as requiring subordinate registered engineers to affix their own seals to the segments they prepare — rather than simply refraining from sealing plans he has not reviewed in detail?
Does Engineer A's act of sealing plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers without direct control and personal supervision expose the public to a categorically greater risk than sealing plans prepared by registered subordinates, and does this distinction warrant a separate and more stringent ethical finding?
Does the Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Standard — which acknowledges that a chief engineer contributes through conceptual direction, design requirements, and consultative input — conflict with the Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard, which demands granular verification before sealing, and if so, how should the boundary between legitimate managerial oversight and insufficient review be drawn?
Does the Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Principle — holding that trust in a subordinate's ability cannot replace the sealing engineer's own verification — conflict with the Technical Segment Sealing by Qualified Preparers principle, which implies that a registered subordinate's own professional judgment and accountability should be recognized and relied upon for the segments they prepare?
Does the Competence Prerequisite for Role Acceptance principle — applied by analogy from Case 85-3 — conflict with the Professional Accountability principle that holds Engineer A fully responsible for all work sealed under his authority, given that accepting a chief engineer role in a large firm may itself be the competence-prerequisite decision that then generates unavoidable sealing obligations he cannot practically fulfill?
Does the Seal and Signature as Professional Judgment Certification Beyond Legal Formality principle — which treats the seal as a substantive ethical act — conflict with the Mutually Dependent Code Provision Reading principle when applied to Section II.2.c, which expressly permits a coordinating engineer to accept responsibility for an entire project, potentially implying that the seal in a coordination role carries a different and less granular certification than the seal of the direct preparer?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's act of affixing his seal constitute a categorical breach of professional duty, regardless of his confidence in subordinates' competence, because the seal functions as a formal certification of personal knowledge and judgment that cannot be delegated by definition?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the systemic risk to public safety created by Engineer A's practice of sealing unreviewed plans outweigh the organizational efficiency gains achieved by allowing a large firm to operate at scale without requiring detailed chief-engineer review of every design?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's substitution of trust in subordinates for personal verification reflect a failure of the virtue of professional integrity, insofar as a truly conscientious engineer would recognize that organizational scale is a structural problem to be solved rather than an excuse that dissolves the obligation of responsible charge?
From a deontological perspective, do NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c, read as mutually dependent provisions, impose a unified and non-waivable duty on Engineer A such that accepting the chief engineer role without the capacity to exercise responsible charge over all sealed documents constitutes a threshold ethical violation independent of any downstream harm?
If Engineer A had restructured the firm's sealing practice so that each registered engineer subordinate affixed their own seal to the technical segments they personally prepared, would Engineer A's role as coordinating chief engineer have satisfied the responsible charge standard under Section II.2.c without requiring him to conduct detailed reviews of every design element?
If Engineer A had declined to seal plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers unless he could exercise direct control and personal supervision over their work, would the firm's operational model have been ethically viable, or would the scale of the organization have made compliance with the responsible charge standard structurally impossible for non-licensed subordinate work?
If Engineer A had applied the same reasoning used in BER Case 85-3 — that accepting a role one lacks the competence to fully discharge is itself an ethical violation — and had refused to accept the chief engineer sealing role given the organizational scale that made detailed review impossible, would the firm have been compelled to adopt a structurally sound multi-engineer sealing model that better protected the public?
If Engineer A had implemented a mandatory checkpoint system requiring him to conduct a detailed review of each project at a defined completion milestone before affixing his seal — even if this slowed the firm's output — would this have constituted sufficient responsible charge to satisfy both the NCEE Model Law definition and the NSPE Code's sealing provisions, and what does the answer reveal about whether the Board's standard is workable for large engineering organizations?
Registered Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparers
{'license': 'Registered Professional Engineer', 'sealing_practice': 'Do not affix own seal to prepared plans', 'supervision_received': 'General direction from Chief Engineer'}
Licensed engineers within Engineer A's firm who prepare engineering plans under his general direction but do not affix their own seals; their work is sealed by Engineer A.
Registered Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparer
registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans
Registered Engineers Relieved of Sealing
Responsible Charge Direction and Control Definition Applied to Chief Engineer Sealing
Engineer A Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor's sealing of subordinate-prepared documents
The Board analyzed the meaning of 'direction and control' under the NCEE Model Law definition of 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) to determine what level of engagement Engineer A must maintain to ethically affix his seal to documents prepared by subordinates.
Responsible charge requires more than nominal managerial oversight; it requires direct control and personal supervision, operationalized in large-firm practice as involvement in design concept establishment, developmental review, and technical consultation availability.
The NCEE Model Law definition sets the floor; the chief engineer managerial standard defines how that floor is met in large-firm practice without requiring personal preparation of every element.
the role of the chief engineer in an engineering firm may be that of a 'manager who provides guidance, direction, and counsel to those within his responsible charge.'
Responsible Charge Engagement Standard Applied to Engineer A General Supervision
All plans sealed by Engineer A across the large firm's concurrent projects
Engineer A's self-described 'general direction and supervision' — limited to establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing elements of design or project status, and answering technical questions — does not constitute the active, substantive engagement required for genuine responsible charge over the sealed documents.
Responsible charge requires that the engineer can genuinely vouch for the technical adequacy of the work. Engineer A's involvement, while meaningful at the conceptual and directional level, does not extend to verification of the final technical product — meaning he cannot genuinely vouch for the documents he seals.
By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses. Engineer A is consulted about technical questions and he provides answers and direction in these matters.
Even under the supervisory mode of sealing, responsible charge requires substantive engagement extending to the final documents, not merely upstream conceptual direction; Engineer A's practice satisfies neither the self-authorship nor the supervisory direction-and-control mode.
Responsible Charge Integrity and Seal Authority Applied to Engineer A Certification Act
All plans sealed by Engineer A across the large firm
When Engineer A affixes his seal to plans he has not reviewed in detail, he certifies that those plans were prepared under his direct control and personal supervision — a certification that is materially incomplete given that his involvement did not extend to verifying the final technical product.
The seal is a professional certification of responsible charge, not merely an administrative endorsement. Engineer A's sealing of plans he cannot verify in detail compromises the integrity and veracity of the professional certification process.
Responsible Charge Integrity and Seal Authority Principle
The integrity of the seal cannot be compromised by organizational scale; Engineer A must either restructure his supervisory arrangements to enable adequate review or decline to seal documents he cannot adequately verify.
Responsible Charge Standard Clarification — Direction and Control Definition
Throughout the Board's deliberation on this case, building on prior cases including Case 85-3
We think a carefully crafted definition of that provision will assist us in a resolution of the facts in this case
NSPE Board of Ethical Review's active definitional work on 'direction and control' and 'responsible charge'
Issuance of the Board's opinion establishing the managerial responsible charge model with segment-level sealing requirements
responsible charge--the term 'responsible charge' as used in this act shall mean 'direct control and personal supervision of engineering work'
the role of the chief engineer in an engineering firm may be that of a 'manager who provides guidance, direction, and counsel'
Board's need to resolve the ethical permissibility of a chief engineer sealing documents prepared by subordinates in a large firm
Seal and Signature as Professional Judgment Certification Beyond Legal Formality
The Board emphasized that the engineer's signature and seal carries consequences beyond ethics — it certifies professional judgment and discretion shaped by ethical concerns — and therefore cannot be treated as a mere administrative formality affixed to documents the engineer has not genuinely reviewed or directed.
The seal is a professional certification of judgment, not merely a legal formality; its ethical weight requires that the sealing engineer have genuinely exercised the professional judgment it purports to certify.
the signature and seal of the engineer has consequences which go beyond the issue of ethics, the conduct of the engineer in the preparation of the plans and drawings involves the professional judgment and discretion of the engineer-judgment and discretion which are shaped by a variety of ethical concerns.
The seal's dual legal-ethical character means that satisfying legal requirements for sealing is necessary but not sufficient; the ethical standard requires genuine professional judgment engagement.
Sealing Non-Registered Engineers' Plans → Non-Registered Work Enters Public Record
Sealing Registered Engineers' Plans Without Their Seals
Sealing Registered Engineers' Plans Without Their Seals → Registered Engineers Relieved of Sealing
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Principle Invoked by Engineer A Rationalization
Plans sealed without detailed review based on confidence in non-registered graduate engineer subordinates
Plans sealed without detailed review based on confidence in registered engineer subordinates
Engineer A explicitly justifies his failure to conduct detailed reviews by citing his confidence in the ability of those he has hired — treating subjective trust in subordinates as an ethical substitute for personal verification. This rationalization is ethically impermissible: the professional seal certifies the engineer's own judgment, not the organization's quality culture.
The principle is violated by Engineer A's belief that confidence in hired personnel discharges his review obligation. The public protection function of the seal requires personal technical verification, not merely organizational trust.
No balancing is available; confidence in subordinates is categorically insufficient to substitute for the sealing engineer's own review. The principle is absolute in this respect.
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution for Review Obligation Applied to Engineer A
The case analysis implicitly establishes that Engineer A's confidence in his subordinates — whether registered or non-registered — cannot substitute for his own responsible charge engagement; the ethical obligation to review and direct the work exists independently of how capable the subordinates are.
The responsible charge obligation is not discharged by hiring competent subordinates; the sealing engineer must personally engage in direction and control regardless of subordinate capability.
the issue here is the extent to which a professional engineer may ethically seal all of the documents the preparation of which he has delegated to subordinates.
Subordinate competence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical sealing; the chief engineer's own engagement in direction and control is independently required.
Subordinate Registered Engineers Technical Segment Attribution Sealing
The subordinate registered engineers in Engineer A's firm were required to possess and exercise the capability to affix their own seals to the technical segments they prepared, per Section II.2.c, but did not do so under the firm's existing practice
Subordinate registered engineers preparing technical segments within Engineer A's large firm without sealing their own work
Failure to seal technical segments they prepared, leaving all sealing to Engineer A contrary to Section II.2.c requirements
Subordinate Registered Engineers Technical Segment Sealers
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (registered)', 'position': 'Subordinate engineer within large firm', 'obligation': 'Seal only personally prepared technical segments'}
Licensed professional engineers working under the chief engineer in the large firm who prepare specific technical segments of projects; per Section II.2.c., each should sign and seal only the segment they personally prepared rather than having the chief engineer seal all documents.
{'type': 'same_individual_as', 'target': 'Registered Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparer'}
Technical Segment Responsible Sealing Engineer
each technical segment [shall be] signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment
the work is being performed by individuals who are not licensed professional engineers, the firm has an ethical obligation that this work be performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the document
Subordinate Registered Engineers Technical Segment Sealing Capability
The registered subordinate engineers in Engineer A's firm possess the licensure and technical capability to seal their own specific technical segments, representing an available structural solution to the responsible charge problem that Engineer A failed to utilize for all plans.
Registered engineers working under Engineer A who prepare specific technical segments and who, per the applicable code provision, may seal those segments — representing an available alternative to Engineer A sealing all plans without detailed review.
The case context noting that per Section III.2.b, registered engineers working under the chief engineer prepare specific technical segments and could affix their own seals — a capability that exists within the firm but is not being fully utilized.
Technical Segment Sealing Attribution Obligation — Multi-Engineer Firm Projects
Ongoing throughout all projects where multiple engineers prepare distinct technical segments
Engineering firm's obligation to ensure each technical segment of project documents is sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared it
Implementation of segment-level sealing attribution practices across all firm projects
Recognition that Engineer A cannot ethically seal all documents regardless of who prepared each technical segment
Technical Segment Sealing by Qualified Preparers Applied in Large-Firm Context
The Board reiterated Section II.2.c.'s requirement that each technical segment be signed and sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared it, applying this as a constraint on Engineer A's practice of sealing all documents regardless of which subordinate prepared each segment.
In large-firm multi-engineer projects, the chief engineer cannot ethically seal all segments; each segment must bear the seal of its qualified preparer, creating a distributed accountability structure that reflects actual technical responsibility.
Technical Segment Attribution and Sealing Integrity Obligation
The chief engineer may coordinate and assume overall project responsibility, but segment-level sealing must be attributed to each segment's qualified preparer; these obligations are complementary, not conflicting.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981 ed.) - Direction and Control Definitions
The term 'direction' is generally defined by Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981 ed.) as 'guidance or supervision of action or conduct; management; a channel or direct course of thought or action.' The word 'control' is generally defined as 'the authority to guide or manage; direction, regulation, and coordination of business activities.'
Used as a definitional reference to establish the plain-language meaning of 'direction' and 'control' as they appear in NSPE Code Section II.2.b, supporting interpretation of the supervisory scope required for ethical sealing of delegated work
concept and design requirement establishment starts Engineer A's supervisory involvement in a project
establishment of design concept and design requirements before review of design elements as project develops
preparation of plans by subordinate engineers before affixing of Engineer A's seal
progress reviews by Engineer A during design preparation by subordinate engineers
technical consultation by Engineer A during design/project development