ProEthica Case 168 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.914190
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

At-Will Departure Four Engineers Firm B Formation Non-Ethical-Violation
type: At-WillDepartureCompetitiveFirmFormationNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four key engineers departed Engineer A's firm following policy disagreements and immediately formed a competing firm (Firm B)
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Ethics adjudicators; Engineer A
obligationclass: At-Will Departure Competitive Firm Formation Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The voluntary departure of four key engineers from Engineer A's firm following policy disagreements and their subsequent formation of Firm B did not in itself constitute an ethics violation, as the right to depart and compete is a fundamental expression of the free enterprise system and at-will employment symmetry.
sourcetext: A more difficult aspect of the case is the application of §7(a) with regard to the promotional efforts of the four former employees of A.
temporalscope: At the time of departure and formation of Firm B
textreferences: A more difficult aspect of the case is the application of §7(a) with regard to the promotional efforts of the four former employees of A.
textreferences: As we understand the facts, however, the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.931842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

At-Will Employment Symmetry Invoked for Departure of Four Engineers
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryandEngineerMobilityRight
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Departure from Firm A following policy disagreements and formation of Firm B
balancingwith: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
balancingwith: Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period as Ethical Transition Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The departure of four key engineers from Firm A following policy disagreements to form a competing firm is evaluated as an exercise of the reciprocal right of engineers to depart employment, mirroring the employer's right to terminate at will
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The departure itself — even en masse and immediately followed by competitive firm formation — does not constitute an ethical violation; the ethical analysis focuses on conduct during and after departure, not the departure itself
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
tensionresolution: Departure right is affirmed; ethical scrutiny is redirected to the manner of post-departure competitive conduct, particularly disparagement and specialized knowledge exploitation
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.920879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

At-Will Professional Mobility of Four Departed Engineers
type: At-WillProfessionalMobilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of departure from Firm A through establishment of Firm B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Four departed engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals
stateclass: At-Will Professional Mobility State
subject: Four key engineering employees who departed Firm A following policy disagreements and formed Firm B
terminatedby: Not terminated — ongoing state of independent professional practice
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals
triggeringevent: Disagreement on firm policies leading to simultaneous departure of four key engineers
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.917133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER-Case-Precedent-Competition-Solicitation
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Prior Cases on Engineer Competition and Client Solicitation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting
usedby: BER in reasoning by analogy to resolve the ethical questions raised
usedincontext: Provides analogical reasoning patterns for evaluating the ethics of post-departure client solicitation, the rule against supplanting, and mutual disparagement between competing engineering firms
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.915636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER_Case_62-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 62-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
textreferences: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in the supplanting analysis
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited in support of the supplanting rule interpretation requiring an existing contract or active negotiation
version: 1962
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.918371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER_Case_62-18
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 62-18
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
textreferences: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in the supplanting analysis
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited in support of the supplanting rule interpretation requiring an existing contract or active negotiation
version: 1962
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.918545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER_Case_64-9
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 64-9
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
textreferences: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in the supplanting analysis
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited in support of the supplanting rule interpretation requiring an existing contract or active negotiation
version: 1964
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.918710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER_Case_73-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 73-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
textreferences: (See also, Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9 and 73-7.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in the supplanting analysis
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited in support of the supplanting rule interpretation requiring an existing contract or active negotiation
version: 1973
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.918847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER_Case_75-15
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 75-15
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
textreferences: In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
textreferences: …we are constrained to avoid a narrow and legalistic interpretation (of those words) and conclude that those words are not a necessary element to find that §12 applies when the purpose…is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of (the other engineer).
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the mutual criticism between Engineer A and Firm B
usedincontext: Precedent interpreting the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' under §12, establishing that a narrow legalistic reading should be avoided and that the provision applies when the purpose is to prevent, hinder, or obstruct another engineer's prospects
version: 1975
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.918992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER_Case_76-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 76-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: As most recently stated in Case 76-5, '…for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work…'
textreferences: As most recently stated in Case 76-5, '…for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work…'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to resolve the supplanting charge
usedincontext: Most recently cited precedent establishing the two-part test for the supplanting rule: the complaining engineer must either have a contract for the work or have been selected for negotiation for the particular work
version: 1976
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.918232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER Objective Adverse Comment Proper Circumstances Discrimination
type: ObjectiveAdverseCommentProperCircumstancesDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Objective Adverse Comment Proper Circumstances Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to identify the narrow circumstances in which objective adverse comment on a competitor's capacity is permissible, while finding both parties' comments fell outside those circumstances
casecontext: The BER articulated the distinction between permissible objective adverse comment and prohibited self-interest-tainted disparagement, applying it to find both parties in violation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Articulating that objective, non-self-interest-tainted adverse comment in proper circumstances is not entirely foreclosed, while finding both Engineer A and Firm B's comments were self-interest-tainted and therefore prohibited
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: We do not entirely foreclose the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the capacity of another engineer or firm to a prospective client in proper circumstances where the adverse comment is objective and not tinged by self-interest.
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: We do not entirely foreclose the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the capacity of another engineer or firm to a prospective client in proper circumstances where the adverse comment is objective and not tinged by self-interest.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

BER Purpose-to-Obstruct Case 75-15 Application Both Parties
type: Purpose-to-ObstructBERPrecedentPurposiveInterpretationApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Purpose-to-Obstruct BER Precedent Purposive Interpretation Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER applied the purposive interpretation from Case 75-15 to find that both Engineer A and Firm B violated §12 without requiring literal malice or falsity, based on the purpose of hindering the other's prospects
casecontext: The BER retrieved and applied Case 75-15's purposive interpretation to evaluate the competitive capability critiques of both Engineer A and Firm B, finding both in violation based on their obstructive purpose
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Application of BER Case 75-15's purposive standard — that 'maliciously or falsely' are not necessary elements when the purpose is to prevent, hinder, or obstruct the other engineer — to find both parties in violation of §12
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
textreferences: In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
textreferences: we are constrained to avoid a narrow and legalistic interpretation (of those words) and conclude that those words are not a necessary element to find that §12 applies when the purpose…is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of (the other engineer).
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.934504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Both Parties Adverse Comment Permissibility Boundary Objective Non-Self-Interested Standard
type: ObjectiveNon-Self-InterestedAdverseCompetitorCommentPermissibilityBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER acknowledged that adverse competitor comments are not categorically prohibited but established the three-part permissibility boundary that neither party met in this case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A and four engineers of Firm B
constraintclass: Objective Non-Self-Interested Adverse Competitor Comment Permissibility Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Both Engineer A and the four engineers of Firm B were constrained to offer adverse comments about the other's capacity only when such comments were objective, not tinged by self-interest, and made in proper circumstances — conditions that neither party satisfied in this case.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §12; BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: We do not entirely foreclose the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the capacity of another engineer or firm to a prospective client in proper circumstances where the adverse comment is objective and not tinged by self-interest.
temporalscope: During competitive solicitation of former clients following departure of four engineers
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: We do not entirely foreclose the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the capacity of another engineer or firm to a prospective client in proper circumstances where the adverse comment is objective and not tinged by self-interest.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.932754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Case 168 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Case 62-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Case 62-18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Case 64-9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Case 73-7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Case 75-15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Case 76-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Coordinated Simultaneous Resig
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Disparages Firm B C
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.499969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Filing Ethical Complaint Again
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Firm A Client Reassurance Outr
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.499905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Firm B Disparages Firm A Capab
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.499938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Formation of Competing Firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.499799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Pre-Departure Client Solicitat
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.499747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Solicitation Using Specific Pr
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.499871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

CausalLink_Solicitation of Former Clients
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.499837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Competitive Employment Freedom Affirmed for Departing Engineers
type: CompetitiveEmploymentFreedomWithConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Formation of Firm B and competitive solicitation of former Firm A clients
balancingwith: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
balancingwith: Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period as Ethical Transition Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The four departing engineers' formation of a competing firm and solicitation of former clients is evaluated as an exercise of competitive employment freedom, permissible provided they do not disclose or misuse confidential information acquired during their employment at Firm A
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Competitive employment freedom permits the formation of a competing firm and solicitation of former employer clients; the ethical constraint is on the use of confidential information, not on competition itself
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
tensionresolution: The freedom to compete is affirmed; the specialized knowledge constraint applies as a specific carve-out for project-specific knowledge, not as a general prohibition on competition
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.922496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Competitive Market Conflict Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Both Parties Violation
type: CompetitiveSolicitationHonestNon-DisparagingCommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both parties made adverse capability comments to former clients during competitive solicitation; both were found in violation of §12
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A and Firm B engineers
obligationclass: Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: Both Engineer A and the four engineers of Firm B violated the obligation to communicate availability and qualifications honestly and without disparaging the other party's capability, by making adverse comments about the other's ability to provide adequate or quality services to former clients during competitive solicitation contacts.
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
temporalscope: During competitive solicitation contacts with former clients following Firm B's formation
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.931986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: The four engineers who founded firm B did not violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former clients of Engineer A, but they were in violation of the code with regard to projects for which they had particular knowledge while in the employ of A.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Firm B violated the Code only with respect to projects for which the departing engineers had particular knowledge leaves unresolved a critical boundary problem: because the same four engineers who hold specialized project knowledge are also the ones conducting all general solicitation, the act of general solicitation cannot be cleanly separated from the implicit deployment of that specialized knowledge. When a former client receives a solicitation from engineers who worked on that client's specific projects, the solicitation itself signals insider familiarity regardless of whether confidential details are explicitly invoked. The Board should have articulated a conduct standard—such as requiring that solicitation communications be limited to publicly available information and make no reference to prior project involvement—to give the specialized knowledge constraint operational meaning rather than leaving it as a nominal restriction that is practically unenforceable in the context of personal professional relationships.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's ruling that general client solicitation by Firm B was permissible implicitly rests on the absence of a written non-compete agreement and the at-will employment status of the four departing engineers. However, the Board did not address whether the coordinated, simultaneous departure of four key engineers—apparently planned in advance while still employed by Engineer A—itself constituted a breach of the duty of loyalty that exists independently of any contractual restriction. Pre-departure planning of competitive solicitation strategy, even without overt promotional action before resignation, may violate the obligation of good faith owed to an employer during the employment relationship. The Board's literal reading of the pre-departure promotional prohibition—finding no violation because no overt action was taken before departure—fails to account for the ethical significance of the intent formed and the coordination executed while the engineers still owed fiduciary-adjacent duties to Firm A. A more complete analysis would have distinguished between the permissibility of the ultimate competitive outcome and the ethical quality of the process by which it was achieved.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding that the specialized knowledge constraint applies to specific projects for which the departing engineers had prior involvement raises a further unresolved question about collective versus individual knowledge attribution. If only one of the four engineers had project-specific knowledge about a given former client's work, the Board's ruling is ambiguous as to whether all four principals of Firm B are thereby restricted from soliciting that client, or only the one engineer with direct prior involvement. Given that Firm B operates as a unified entity and that solicitation is conducted on behalf of the firm rather than individual engineers, the more ethically rigorous position would hold that specialized knowledge possessed by any one principal taints the firm's solicitation of that client as a whole—since the firm would inevitably deploy that knowledge in structuring its competitive approach even if the knowledgeable engineer is not the one making direct contact. The Board's silence on this aggregation question leaves a significant gap in the practical application of its ruling.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_11
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Firm B acted unethically in casting doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services correctly identifies the violation but does not adequately examine the structural reason why such disparagement is particularly problematic in this context: the departing engineers possessed insider knowledge of Firm A's operational capacity, staffing, and project commitments, giving their negative assessments a credibility and specificity that an ordinary competitor's criticism would lack. This asymmetric informational position means that Firm B's disparagement was not merely a competitive slight but a potentially devastating use of confidential organizational knowledge to undermine a former employer's market standing. The ethical violation is therefore more serious than the Board's symmetric treatment alongside Engineer A's reciprocal disparagement suggests, because Firm B's statements carried the implicit authority of insiders and were likely more damaging to Engineer A's client relationships than Engineer A's statements about the newly formed and unknown Firm B.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's symmetric treatment of Firm B's and Engineer A's disparagement as equivalent ethical violations, while formally correct, obscures a morally relevant distinction between the two actors' situations. Engineer A's statements to former clients about Firm B's qualifications occurred in the context of defending his firm's existing client relationships against an aggressive competitive incursion—a reactive posture that, while still ethically impermissible, differs in character from Firm B's proactive disparagement during offensive solicitation. The Board's refusal to distinguish between defensive reassurance communications and offensive competitive attacks, while consistent with a strict reading of the prohibition on reputation injury, forecloses a potentially important ethical nuance: that the purpose and context of disparaging statements may bear on their moral gravity even when both are formally prohibited. A more complete analysis would acknowledge this distinction while still affirming that neither form of disparagement is ethically permissible, thereby providing clearer guidance for future cases involving reactive versus proactive competitive communications.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_11a
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's finding that Engineer A acted unethically in disparaging Firm B's qualifications is analytically incomplete because it does not address the threshold question of whether Engineer A's ethical complaint against the four engineers was itself compromised by competitive self-interest. Engineer A simultaneously filed an ethical protest against Firm B and engaged in the symmetrically equivalent misconduct of disparaging Firm B's capabilities—a posture that suggests the ethical complaint may have been instrumentalized as a competitive weapon rather than filed from a disinterested concern for professional standards. The Board's failure to examine this dynamic leaves open the possibility that the formal ethics process was being used strategically to disadvantage a competitor, which would itself constitute an ethical concern independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. A complete analysis should have noted that Engineer A's credibility as a complainant was undermined by his own concurrent violation, and that engineers who invoke the Code against competitors while simultaneously violating it occupy an ethically compromised position that the Board should explicitly discourage.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_11
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions collectively establish a framework in which competitive solicitation is broadly permissible, specialized knowledge exploitation is restricted, and mutual disparagement is prohibited—but this framework does not address the practical impossibility of honest competitive solicitation that is entirely free of implicit comparative judgment. When Firm B contacts a former client of Engineer A to announce its availability, the very act of solicitation carries an implicit message that Firm B believes it can serve the client as well as or better than Engineer A. The Board's prohibition on disparagement, if applied with maximal strictness, would effectively prohibit competitive solicitation altogether, since any solicitation of a client currently served by another engineer implicitly questions that engineer's sufficiency. The Board should have articulated a standard distinguishing between affirmative false or misleading statements about a competitor's incapacity—which are clearly prohibited—and the inherent comparative implication of competitive solicitation itself, which must be tolerated if free and open competition is to have any meaning. Without this distinction, the disparagement prohibition and the competition permission are in irresolvable tension.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: The four engineers comprising Firm B acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Regarding Q101: The coordinated simultaneous resignation of all four engineers, while not explicitly addressed by the Board, carries independent ethical weight beyond subsequent solicitation conduct. A coordinated group departure timed to maximize disruption—particularly when it strips a firm of key personnel at once—may itself constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty owed to an employer during the period of employment. However, absent evidence that the coordination was specifically designed to cripple Firm A rather than simply to enable the formation of a viable competing firm, the ethical analysis should focus on intent and effect. Because the four engineers were employees rather than partners or principals of Firm A, their collective at-will departure, even if coordinated, does not by itself rise to an ethical violation under the Code. The Board's implicit recognition of at-will professional mobility supports this conclusion. Nevertheless, if the timing was deliberately chosen to coincide with a critical project phase or client commitment period for the purpose of maximizing harm to Firm A rather than merely enabling competitive formation, a stronger case for a loyalty-based violation could be made. The case facts do not establish that level of purposive disruption, so no violation should be found on this ground alone.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Regarding Q102: The Board's conclusion that the four engineers did not violate the Code by generally soliciting former clients implicitly rests on a literal reading of the pre-departure promotional prohibition—that is, no overt promotional action was taken before resignation. However, the deeper ethical question is whether internal planning discussions about client solicitation, conducted while still employed by Engineer A, constituted a breach of the duty of loyalty. From a deontological standpoint, the duty of loyalty requires that an employee not actively work against the employer's interests during the employment relationship. Internal strategic planning for post-departure competition, if it remained purely deliberative and did not involve misappropriation of confidential information, use of firm resources, or covert client contact, falls within the permissible zone of an employee's right to plan a career transition. The Code's literal boundary—prohibiting promotional action before departure, not deliberative planning—supports the conclusion that pre-departure discussion without overt action does not constitute a violation. This conclusion is reinforced by the practical reality that requiring engineers to form a competing firm without any prior planning would impose an unreasonable and unenforceable standard. Accordingly, no ethical violation arises from the pre-departure planning discussions themselves.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_11
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Regarding Q103: The four departing engineers had developed personal professional relationships with clients of Firm A during their employment, and this raises the question of what transparency obligations they owed those clients upon departure. While the Code does not impose an affirmative duty to disclose the internal reasons for departure—such as policy disagreements with Engineer A—the engineers did owe clients honest and non-deceptive communication in the course of their solicitation outreach. This obligation is distinct from the disparagement prohibition: it concerns what the engineers were required to say, not merely what they were prohibited from saying. Specifically, when contacting former clients, the engineers were ethically obligated to accurately represent the nature and capacity of their new firm, to avoid creating false impressions about Firm A's remaining capabilities, and to refrain from leveraging the personal trust built during employment in a manner that exploited confidential knowledge. The Board's finding that Firm B violated the Code by casting doubt on Engineer A's capacity is consistent with this transparency framework: the personal relationships that gave the engineers access to former clients also heightened their obligation to communicate honestly and without self-interested distortion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_11a
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Regarding Q104: The Board did not examine whether Engineer A's ethical complaint against the four engineers was itself ethically compromised by his competitive self-interest. This omission is analytically significant. Engineer A filed the complaint in the context of an active business rivalry, and his stated grounds—violation of the supplanting rule—were ultimately rejected by the Board. Moreover, the Board found that Engineer A himself engaged in the symmetrically equivalent misconduct of disparaging Firm B's qualifications. This raises the question of whether the complaint was filed as a genuine expression of concern for professional standards or as a competitive weapon. While the Code does not prohibit an engineer from filing an ethical complaint against a competitor, the use of the ethics process as a tool of competitive suppression rather than professional protection would itself implicate the honesty and integrity obligations of the Code. The Board's finding that Engineer A violated the Code through disparagement, combined with the rejection of his supplanting allegation, suggests that his conduct throughout the episode was substantially motivated by competitive self-interest rather than disinterested professional concern. A more complete analysis would have examined whether the complaint filing itself met the standard of honest, non-self-interested professional conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_11
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: Regarding Q201: The tension between the Free and Open Competition principle and the Specialized Knowledge Constraint is most acute precisely because the same engineers who hold confidential project knowledge are also the ones conducting the solicitation. The Board's resolution—permitting general solicitation while restricting solicitation tied to specific project knowledge—draws a principled but practically difficult boundary. The ethical line should be drawn not at the identity of the soliciting engineer but at the nature of the information deployed in the solicitation. If a departing engineer contacts a former client and relies on general professional familiarity—knowledge of the client's industry, publicly available project history, or the personal relationship itself—this falls within permissible competition. If, however, the solicitation leverages non-public project details, budget information, technical specifications, or strategic priorities learned in confidence during employment, it crosses into impermissible exploitation of specialized knowledge. The difficulty is that the personal relationship itself is inseparable from the knowledge context in which it was formed. The Board's ruling implicitly requires that engineers with specialized knowledge conduct solicitation as if they did not possess that knowledge—a standard that is ethically sound in principle but operationally demanding in practice.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: Regarding Q202 and Q204: The Board's symmetric finding that both Engineer A and Firm B violated the Code through disparagement correctly resists the argument that competitive solicitation and reputational impact are inseparable. The ethical distinction lies between the inevitable incidental reputational effect of competition—which is permissible—and affirmative statements designed to cast doubt on a competitor's qualifications—which are not. Engineer A's framing of his disparagement as defensive reassurance to existing clients rather than offensive competitive attack does not alter the ethical analysis. The Code's prohibition on injuring a colleague's professional reputation applies regardless of whether the injurious statement is framed as reassurance, warning, or critique. The relevant question is not the speaker's characterization of their intent but whether the statement was designed to obstruct the other party's professional standing. Both parties crossed this line. The Board's symmetric application of the disparagement prohibition appropriately rejects the defensive-reassurance exception, because accepting such an exception would effectively permit unlimited reputational harm so long as it was framed as client protection rather than competitive attack.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_11
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: Regarding Q203: The conflict between the Honesty Obligation and the Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Critique Prohibition presents one of the most difficult boundary problems in competitive engineering ethics. The Board's ruling implies that even objectively true statements about a competitor's qualifications are ethically impermissible when made in a context of competitive self-interest and without a disinterested basis. This standard is defensible but requires careful articulation. The appropriate test is not whether the statement is factually accurate but whether the speaker is in a position to make the adverse assessment without a disqualifying conflict of interest, and whether the statement is made through an appropriate channel—such as a formal peer review, a client's direct inquiry answered honestly, or a professional standards proceeding—rather than as an instrument of competitive solicitation. A competing engineer who volunteers adverse capability assessments about a rival during client solicitation cannot claim the honesty defense, because the competitive context itself taints the communication regardless of factual accuracy. If Engineer A or Firm B possessed genuine, factually grounded concerns about the other's capacity, the ethical path was to decline to comment on the competitor's qualifications during solicitation, not to weaponize those concerns in a competitive context.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: Regarding Q301: From a deontological perspective, the duty of loyalty owed by an employee to an employer is a real but bounded obligation. It prohibits active sabotage, misappropriation of confidential information, and covert client solicitation during employment, but it does not extend to prohibiting an employee from mentally or deliberatively planning a career transition. The four engineers' internal discussions about post-departure client solicitation, conducted without overt promotional action, do not violate the categorical duty of loyalty because the duty's scope is defined by the prohibition on acting against the employer's interests, not by the prohibition on thinking about future competition. A deontological analysis that extended the loyalty duty to cover deliberative planning would impose an obligation that is both unenforceable and inconsistent with the fundamental dignity of the employee as a rational agent capable of planning their own professional future. The more demanding deontological question is whether the coordinated nature of the departure—designed to maximize the competitive impact of the group's exit—crossed the line from permissible planning into purposive harm. On the facts as presented, this threshold was not clearly reached.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: Regarding Q302: From a deontological perspective, the duty to avoid injuring a colleague's professional reputation does not admit of a factual-accuracy exception in the context of competitive solicitation. The categorical nature of the prohibition derives from the recognition that competitive contexts systematically distort the speaker's ability to make disinterested assessments, and that clients are poorly positioned to discount for this distortion. Even if an engineer holds a genuinely and reasonably formed belief that a competitor lacks the capacity to complete a project, the duty to avoid reputational injury prohibits expressing that belief to clients during competitive solicitation. This is not because honesty is less important than reputation protection, but because the competitive context renders the communication structurally dishonest regardless of its factual content—the speaker cannot be a reliable witness to their competitor's incapacity when they stand to benefit from the client's acceptance of that assessment. The appropriate deontological response when an engineer has genuine concerns about a competitor's qualifications is to raise those concerns through appropriate professional channels, not to deploy them as competitive instruments.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_11
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: Regarding Q303: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's asymmetric ruling—permitting general client solicitation while restricting solicitation tied to specialized project knowledge—produces a superior outcome compared to either extreme alternative. A blanket prohibition on former-client solicitation would suppress legitimate competition, reduce client choice, and effectively grant incumbent firms a permanent monopoly over client relationships developed through the labor of employees who may have been the primary relationship-builders. A blanket permission including specialized knowledge exploitation would undermine the confidentiality norms that make client-engineer relationships possible, reduce clients' willingness to share sensitive project information, and create perverse incentives for engineers to accumulate confidential knowledge as a competitive asset for future departure. The Board's middle path preserves competitive market efficiency by allowing the four engineers to compete on the basis of their general professional skills and client relationships, while protecting the confidentiality interests that sustain the profession's trustworthiness. The consequentialist case for this outcome is strong, though its practical enforcement—requiring engineers to self-police the boundary between general and specialized knowledge in solicitation—imposes monitoring costs that a blanket rule would avoid.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: Regarding Q304: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's conduct reveals a significant failure of professional integrity. The virtue of integrity requires consistency between one's stated principles and one's actions. Engineer A protested the departing engineers' conduct on ethical grounds while simultaneously engaging in the symmetrically equivalent misconduct of disparaging Firm B's qualifications to former clients. This inconsistency is not merely a technical ethical violation—it reflects a deeper failure of the virtue of integrity, which requires that an engineer's ethical complaints be grounded in genuine concern for professional standards rather than competitive self-interest. A virtuous engineer in Engineer A's position would have recognized that his own conduct was subject to the same ethical constraints he was invoking against Firm B, and would have either refrained from disparagement or declined to file an ethical complaint that he was not himself in a position to make with clean hands. The Board's finding that Engineer A violated the Code is consistent with this virtue ethics analysis, though the Board did not explicitly address the integrity implications of his simultaneous complaint-filing and disparagement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_11
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: Regarding Q401: If a written non-compete agreement had been in place between the four engineers and Engineer A, the Board's analysis of general client solicitation would almost certainly have reached a different conclusion, though the ethical and legal dimensions would need to be carefully distinguished. A valid, reasonable non-compete agreement would have created a contractual obligation that itself carries ethical weight under the Code's requirement that engineers fulfill their professional obligations and honor commitments. Solicitation of former clients in breach of such an agreement would not merely be a contractual violation—it would constitute an ethical violation of the obligation to honor professional commitments. However, the ethical analysis would still need to assess whether the non-compete's scope was reasonable, since an overly broad restriction that effectively prevented the engineers from practicing their profession would itself raise ethical concerns about the fairness of the employment relationship. The absence of any non-compete agreement in this case was therefore not merely a legal fact but an ethically relevant one: it confirmed that Engineer A had not secured the contractual protection that would have altered the competitive solicitation analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_11a
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Regarding Q402: The Board's ruling on the supplanting rule correctly held that no violation occurred with respect to clients for whom no formal selection or negotiation had commenced. The counterfactual question of whether a different outcome would follow if formal selection or negotiation had already begun is answered by the Board's own precedent framework: once active negotiation or selection has commenced, solicitation by a competing firm crosses into supplanting territory. If Firm B had contacted clients at a stage where Engineer A was already in active negotiation—not merely in preliminary discussion—the ethical analysis would have shifted decisively against Firm B. The ethical significance of the pre-award status is that it defines the point at which a prospective client relationship has crystallized sufficiently to warrant protection from competitive interference. Prior to that point, the client retains full freedom to consider alternatives, and competitive solicitation serves the client's interest in market choice. After that point, competitive solicitation that is designed to displace an engineer already in active negotiation constitutes an improper interference with an established professional relationship.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: Regarding Q403: The counterfactual of objectively verifiable, non-competitively motivated adverse statements about a competitor's qualifications points to the outer boundary of the disparagement prohibition. The Board's ruling, read in light of the purpose-to-obstruct standard applied in prior cases, suggests that the prohibition is not absolute but is triggered by the combination of competitive self-interest and the intent or effect of obstructing the competitor's professional standing. If Engineer A's statements about Firm B's qualifications had been made in a context entirely free of competitive motivation—for example, in response to a direct client inquiry, supported by objective evidence, and without any solicitation of the client's business—a stronger argument could be made that such statements fell within the permissible zone of honest professional communication. However, the facts of this case do not approach that counterfactual: Engineer A's statements were made in the context of active competitive solicitation, were motivated by his interest in retaining clients, and were not grounded in any objective assessment process. The ethical violation therefore stands regardless of whether the statements happened to be factually accurate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_7a
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: Regarding Q404: The Board's ruling on specialized knowledge solicitation restriction raises the question of whether the restriction should apply to all four engineers collectively when only one of them possessed project-specific knowledge about a given client. The most defensible answer is that the restriction should apply individually rather than collectively: only the engineer or engineers who actually possessed the specialized knowledge about a specific client's project should be restricted from soliciting that client on the basis of that knowledge. The other engineers, who lack the specialized knowledge, should remain free to solicit the same client under the general competition framework. However, a practical complication arises when the solicitation is conducted collectively as a firm rather than individually: if the firm's pitch to a client is informed by the specialized knowledge of even one of its principals, the entire solicitation is tainted by that knowledge regardless of which engineer formally makes the contact. The ethical obligation therefore extends to ensuring that the firm's collective solicitation of any given client is not structured or informed by the specialized knowledge of any one of its principals, even if that principal is not the one making direct contact.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.507940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: Engineer A acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Firm B to provide quality services.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.506015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_11
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Section_11a
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between Free and Open Competition and the Specialized Knowledge Constraint by drawing a functional boundary at the point where competitive advantage derives from confidential project-specific information rather than from general professional skill or pre-existing personal relationships. General solicitation of former clients is permissible because it reflects the natural consequence of professional mobility and market competition; however, when a departing engineer's competitive edge on a specific opportunity is traceable to confidential knowledge acquired in the course of employment—knowledge the client shared with the firm in trust—that advantage is ethically impermissible regardless of whether a formal contract existed. This resolution teaches that Free and Open Competition is not an absolute principle but a bounded one: it operates within a floor set by fiduciary-adjacent obligations that survive the employment relationship. The same engineers who are free to compete generally are not free to weaponize confidential knowledge as a competitive instrument, even when no contractual non-compete exists to enforce that boundary.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.508024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Competitive Employment Freedom and the Prohibition on Reputation Injury was resolved not by subordinating either principle to the other, but by distinguishing the act of competition from the method of competition. The Board affirmed that departing engineers have an unqualified right to form a competing firm and solicit former clients, but it simultaneously held that the communicative conduct accompanying that solicitation is independently subject to ethical scrutiny. This resolution reveals a critical principle prioritization hierarchy: the right to compete is protected at the level of action, but the manner of competitive communication is governed by a separate and co-equal obligation of professional honesty and collegial non-harm. Competitive Employment Freedom does not license disparagement as a competitive tool; it licenses only the underlying competitive act. The practical implication is that an engineer can lawfully do everything Firm B did in terms of market entry while still being found in violation for how that entry was communicated to prospective clients. The principle tension is therefore not resolved by priority but by domain separation—freedom governs the act, honesty governs the speech.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.508116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 2
answers question4: 3
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_Section_12
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The most analytically significant principle interaction in this case is the collision between the Honesty Obligation in Competitive Solicitation Communications and the Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Critique Prohibition, applied symmetrically to both parties. The Board's symmetric finding—that both Engineer A and Firm B violated the code by disparaging each other's qualifications—establishes that the ethical prohibition on capability disparagement is not contingent on the falsity of the statement, the identity of the aggressor, or the defensive framing of the communication. Engineer A's reassurance to clients that his firm retained capacity was treated as ethically equivalent to Firm B's offensive doubt-casting, because both communications crossed into adverse commentary about a competitor's qualifications motivated by competitive self-interest. This teaches a demanding principle: the Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Critique Prohibition operates as a near-categorical constraint that forecloses competitively motivated adverse commentary even when the underlying concern may be factually grounded. The only permissible escape valve suggested by the Board's reasoning—drawing on the Purpose-to-Obstruct Standard from prior precedent—is adverse commentary made in objectively proper circumstances entirely free of competitive self-interest, a standard that neither party met. The case therefore teaches that mutual wrongdoing does not cancel ethical obligations, that reactive disparagement is not ethically distinguishable from proactive disparagement, and that the profession's interest in collegial non-harm takes priority over any individual engineer's interest in competitive self-defense through reputational attack.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.508201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Coordinated Simultaneous Resignation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Coordinated Simultaneous Resignation → Firm A Client Relationship Disrupted
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Firm B's engineers solicit former clients of Engineer A generally, restrict solicitation only to clients for whom none of them held specialized project knowledge, or refrain from all former-client solicitation pending ethics guidance?
focus: Four engineers departed Firm A simultaneously, formed Firm B, and then solicited former clients of Engineer A. The core question is whether this general solicitation of former clients — where no active contract or formal selection/negotiation was underway — constituted an ethical violation of the supplanting prohibition or was permissible competitive activity under free enterprise principles. A secondary constraint applies where any departing engineer held specialized project-specific knowledge about a given client's work.
option1: Proceed with general solicitation of all former clients of Engineer A where no active contract exists, but refrain from competing for specific projects on which any Firm B principal gained particular project-specific knowledge during employment at Firm A, unless all interested parties consent.
option2: Treat all former-client solicitation as permissible competitive activity under the free enterprise principle, on the ground that general professional familiarity and personal client relationships — not confidential project data — are the basis of solicitation, and that no contractual non-compete restricts this activity.
option3: Refrain from soliciting any former client of Engineer A until consent of all interested parties is obtained, on the ground that the personal relationships and project familiarity developed during employment are inseparable from specialized knowledge and that the ethical risk of inadvertent knowledge exploitation is too high to manage through self-policing.
role label: Firm B Engineers (Four Departing Engineers)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Firm B's engineers, when soliciting former clients of Engineer A, confine their communications to affirmative representations about Firm B's own capabilities, or may they also make adverse assessments of Engineer A's capacity to provide quality services?
focus: During competitive solicitation of former clients of Engineer A, the four engineers comprising Firm B cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services. The question is whether this conduct violated the prohibition on injuring a colleague's professional reputation, given that the statements were made in a context of direct competitive self-interest and were designed to secure client transfers to Firm B.
option1: Limit all client communications to affirmative representations about Firm B's capabilities, experience, and capacity, refraining entirely from any adverse commentary about Engineer A's ability to provide quality services, regardless of whether such concerns are factually grounded.
option2: When clients raise questions about Engineer A's remaining capacity following the departure of four key engineers, provide honest and factually grounded assessments of Engineer A's reduced staffing and capability, on the ground that clients are entitled to accurate information to make informed decisions about their engineering service providers.
option3: Refrain from volunteering adverse assessments of Engineer A's capacity, but respond honestly and specifically when clients directly ask about the impact of the engineers' departure on Firm A's service quality, treating such direct inquiries as requiring truthful rather than evasive answers.
role label: Firm B Engineers (Four Departing Engineers)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A, when contacting former clients to reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity, confine his communications to affirmative representations about Firm A's qualifications, or may he also cast doubt on Firm B's ability to provide quality services as part of that reassurance?
focus: Upon learning that Firm B had cast doubt on his ability to provide quality services to former clients, Engineer A contacted those clients to reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity — and in doing so, indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services. The question is whether Engineer A's reactive disparagement of Firm B, framed as defensive client reassurance rather than offensive competitive attack, is ethically distinguishable from Firm B's proactive disparagement, or whether the same prohibition applies symmetrically regardless of the speaker's defensive posture.
option1: Contact former clients to affirm Firm A's continued staffing, capacity, and commitment to their projects, without making any adverse statements about Firm B's qualifications or ability to provide quality services, recognizing that the same prohibition that applies to Firm B's disparagement applies symmetrically to Engineer A.
option2: Counter Firm B's adverse statements about Firm A's capacity by informing clients of Firm B's status as a newly formed firm lacking the established track record, institutional knowledge, and project continuity of Firm A, on the ground that clients are entitled to a complete picture and that Engineer A's defensive response is ethically distinguishable from Firm B's offensive attack.
option3: Confine adverse assessments of Firm B's qualifications exclusively to the formal ethics complaint process rather than communicating them directly to clients, on the ground that the ethics process is the appropriate channel for professional qualification concerns while client communications should be limited to affirmative representations about Firm A.
role label: Engineer A Incumbent Firm Principal
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should the four engineers be found to have violated their ethical obligations by internally discussing and planning post-departure client solicitation while still employed at Firm A, even though no overt promotional action or client contact occurred before their resignation?
focus: While still employed at Firm A, the four engineers discussed and planned their post-departure strategy, including the possibility of soliciting former clients of Engineer A after leaving. No overt promotional action or client contact occurred before their simultaneous resignation. The question is whether this pre-departure internal planning — without external promotional action — violated the prohibition on promotional efforts or negotiations for work on behalf of a competing practice while still employed, or whether the prohibition's literal boundary protects purely deliberative internal discussion.
option1: Conclude that the four engineers did not violate the Code because the pre-departure promotional prohibition applies only to actual external promotional efforts or negotiations with clients, and internal deliberative planning among prospective co-founders — without client contact — falls outside the prohibition's literal scope.
option2: Conclude that the coordinated simultaneous resignation, planned in advance while the engineers still owed duties to Firm A, constituted a breach of the duty of loyalty that is ethically cognizable independently of any specific promotional act — because the intent to maximize competitive disruption was formed and executed during the employment relationship.
option3: Conclude that pre-departure planning is permissible as a general matter but that the specific coordination of simultaneous departure timed to coincide with a critical operational period for Firm A — if established by evidence — would cross the line from permissible career planning into purposive disruption constituting a loyalty-based violation, and remand for factual development on the timing question.
role label: Firm B Engineers (Four Departing Engineers)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A file a formal ethics complaint against Firm B for alleged supplanting violations, given that he simultaneously holds no active contracts with the former clients at issue, is himself engaging in disparagement of Firm B's qualifications, and is in an active competitive rivalry with the engineers he is complaining against?
focus: Engineer A filed a formal ethics complaint against the four departing engineers alleging supplanting violations, while simultaneously engaging in the symmetrically equivalent misconduct of disparaging Firm B's qualifications to former clients. The Board ultimately rejected the supplanting allegation and found Engineer A himself in violation for disparagement. The question is whether Engineer A's ethics complaint was itself ethically compromised by his competitive self-interest, and whether the formal ethics process was being instrumentalized as a competitive weapon rather than invoked from disinterested professional concern.
option1: File the ethics complaint against Firm B but affirmatively disclose to the receiving ethics body the competitive relationship between Engineer A and Firm B, the absence of active contracts with the former clients at issue, and the factual basis for the supplanting allegation — allowing the ethics body to assess the complaint's context and the complainant's potential self-interest appropriately.
option2: Decline to file the ethics complaint while simultaneously engaging in disparagement of Firm B's qualifications, recognizing that the concurrent misconduct undermines the integrity of the complaint and that the ethics process should not be invoked by a party who is at the same time committing a symmetrically equivalent violation.
option3: File an ethics complaint limited to Firm B's actual disparagement of Engineer A's qualifications — a violation the Board ultimately confirmed — rather than the supplanting allegation, which rests on a misreading of the supplanting prohibition given the absence of active contracts, thereby grounding the complaint in a factually and legally accurate basis rather than a competitively motivated misapplication of the rule.
role label: Engineer A Incumbent Firm Principal
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should the specialized knowledge constraint be applied individually — restricting only the specific engineer who holds project-specific knowledge from soliciting that client — or collectively — restricting the entire firm from soliciting any client for whom any one principal holds specialized knowledge?
focus: The Board's ruling permits general client solicitation by Firm B while restricting solicitation tied to specialized project knowledge — but the same four engineers who hold specialized knowledge are also the ones conducting all general solicitation. This creates a boundary problem: when a former client receives a solicitation from engineers who worked on that client's specific projects, the solicitation itself signals insider familiarity regardless of whether confidential details are explicitly invoked. The question is how the specialized knowledge constraint should be operationalized when the soliciting engineers and the knowledge-holding engineers are the same individuals acting as a unified firm.
option1: Treat the specialized knowledge constraint as applying to the entire firm whenever any one principal holds project-specific knowledge about a given client's work, on the ground that a firm-level solicitation is inevitably informed by that knowledge regardless of which engineer makes direct contact — and obtain consent of all interested parties before soliciting any such client.
option2: Restrict only the specific engineer who holds project-specific knowledge from participating in solicitation of that client, while permitting the other Firm B principals — who lack the specialized knowledge — to solicit the same client under the general competition framework, with internal firm protocols ensuring the knowledge-holding engineer is screened from the solicitation process.
option3: Permit firm-level solicitation of all former clients but require that all solicitation communications be confined to publicly available information and make no reference — explicit or implicit — to prior project involvement, insider familiarity, or knowledge of the client's specific technical or strategic priorities, thereby operationalizing the specialized knowledge constraint through a conduct standard rather than a categorical recusal.
role label: Firm B Engineers (Four Departing Engineers)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.503373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Both Parties
type: DeregulatedAdvertisingContextEthicsNon-EliminationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case arises in a context where advertising restrictions have been substantially relaxed, but the core ethical obligations of non-deception and non-disparagement remain operative.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Both Engineer A / Firm A and Firm B
constraintclass: Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Constraint
constraintstatement: The deregulated advertising environment for engineering services did not eliminate the ethical obligations of truthfulness and non-deception constraining the content of competitive solicitation communications; both parties remained bound by the prohibition on misleading statements about competitors' qualifications regardless of the permissive legal environment for promotional activity.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code truthfulness and non-deception provisions; antitrust and commercial free speech developments
sourcetext: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: Throughout the competitive solicitation period
textreferences: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.926250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Disparaging Misrepresentation Prohibition Violated by Firm B
type: DisparagingMisrepresentationofCompetitorCapabilityProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Communications with former clients of Firm A during competitive solicitation
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services to former clients during solicitation contacts, constituting an affirmative false or misleading representation about a competitor's capability made to induce client defection
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Casting doubt on Engineer A's capability during client solicitation — particularly when Firm B stands to benefit directly from clients' diminished confidence in Firm A — violates the prohibition on disparaging misrepresentation of competitor capability
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
tensionresolution: Even truthful concerns about a competitor's capability may not be volunteered in solicitation contexts where the engineer stands to benefit; the appropriate channel for genuine competence concerns is formal complaint, not client-directed disparagement
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.921363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer-Departure-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerDepartureandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE professional ethics framework
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
textreferences: Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
textreferences: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
usedby: BER in evaluating both Firm B's conduct and Engineer A's retaliatory statements
usedincontext: Defines the ethical rights and limits applicable when engineers leave a firm to form a competing firm, including the balance between individual initiative, client freedom of choice, and prohibitions on disparaging the former employer to divert clients
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.915224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer-Solicitation-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: NSPE professional ethics framework
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
usedby: BER in evaluating mutual disparagement conduct by both parties
usedincontext: Prohibits engineers from injuring the reputation of competitors or making false/misleading statements about competitors' qualifications during solicitation of work; applies to both Firm B's disparagement of Firm A and Engineer A's disparagement of Firm B
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.915494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Non-Harm Competitive Context
type: CollegialNon-HarminCompetitiveContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize his collegial obligation to refrain from providing critical opinions about Firm B's qualifications in competitive solicitation contexts, even when motivated by legitimate competitive self-interest in client retention.
casecontext: Engineer A's disparagement of Firm B's qualifications to former clients constituted a violation of collegial non-harm obligations in the competitive solicitation context.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A indicated doubt about Firm B's qualifications to former clients, violating collegial non-harm obligations in a competitive context
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.929011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Motivation Transparency in Protest Filing
type: CompetitivePeerMisconductReportingMotivationTransparencySelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to ensure his ethics protest against Firm B was grounded in professional duty rather than competitive self-interest, and to be transparent about his competitive relationship with Firm B
casecontext: Engineer A's ethics protest against Firm B was found to be grounded in competitive motivation rather than accurate application of the supplanting rule, raising questions about the transparency and legitimacy of the reporting motivation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Filing an ethics protest alleging supplanting by Firm B while having a direct competitive interest in the outcome — the BER found the protest was not grounded in an accurate reading of the supplanting rule
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that his ethics protest alleging supplanting by Firm B was grounded in an accurate reading of the supplanting rule
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that his ethics protest alleging supplanting by Firm B was grounded in an accurate reading of the supplanting rule
textreferences: We deal first with the question of the application of the supplanting rule (§11(a)) because in this set of circumstances and charges and counter-charges it is most readily resolved.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Protest Motivation Transparency
type: CompetitivePeerMisconductReportingMotivationTransparencySelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that his ethics protest against Firm B was filed in a context of direct competitive interest — having lost four key engineers and clients to Firm B — and to ensure the protest was grounded in accurate application of the supplanting rule rather than competitive self-interest.
casecontext: Engineer A's protest of Firm B's conduct required self-assessment of whether the protest was motivated by genuine ethical concern or competitive self-interest, given his direct competitive relationship with Firm B.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A filed an ethics protest alleging supplanting by Firm B while himself being a direct competitor for the same former clients, requiring transparent acknowledgment of his competitive motivation
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.928427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Self-Interest Contaminated Criticism of Firm B
type: CompetitiveSelf-InterestCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's critical statements about Firm B's capacity were made in the context of competitive solicitation of the same former clients, making the criticism self-interest contaminated and prohibited.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from offering critical evaluative opinions about Firm B's qualifications to former clients when Engineer A was simultaneously competing for those same clients' work, as such criticism was structured to serve competitive advantage rather than objective professional assessment.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case 75-15
sourcetext: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's competitive reassurance contacts with former clients
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.925919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Disparagement of Firm B
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, while contacting former clients to reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity, indicated doubt about Firm B's qualifications — constituting the same prohibited disparagement as Firm B's conduct toward Engineer A.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from indicating doubt about Firm B's qualification to provide quality services when contacting former clients, as such statements constitute an attempt to injure the professional reputation, prospects, and practice of Firm B's engineers in violation of NSPE Code Section III.7.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; BER Case 75-15
sourcetext: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's post-departure reassurance contacts with former clients
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.924868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Disparagement of Firm B Qualification to Former Clients
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryThroughPredictiveDisparagementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: While contacting former clients to reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity, Engineer A made statements indicating doubt about Firm B's qualifications.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Through Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from indicating doubt about Firm B's qualification to provide quality services when contacting former clients, as such representations constitute disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation in violation of the engineer's duties of honesty, fairness, and collegial respect.
sourcetext: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's contacts with former clients following departure of the four engineers
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.923009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Disparages Firm B Capability
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Honest Non-Deceptive Competitive Reassurance Communication
type: TruthfulandNon-DeceptiveAdvertisingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A contacted former clients to indicate that his firm retained capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers, during which he indicated doubt about Firm B's qualifications.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct his contacts with former clients to reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity in a manner that was truthful, not misleading, and not deceptive — including refraining from making unsubstantiated negative representations about Firm B's qualifications.
sourcetext: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's contacts with former clients following departure of the four engineers
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.924061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Incumbent Capacity Honest Reassurance
type: IncumbentFirmCapacityHonestReassuranceCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incumbent Firm Capacity Honest Reassurance Communication Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to contact former clients and honestly reassure them of his firm's continued capacity to provide quality services after the departure of four key engineers, without disparaging the departing engineers or their new firm.
casecontext: Engineer A's reassurance contacts were partially permissible (affirming own capacity) but crossed into impermissible disparagement (doubting Firm B's qualifications).
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A contacted former clients to indicate his firm was still available and retained capacity to provide proper services, but also impermissibly indicated doubt about Firm B's qualifications
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.
textreferences: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.928111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Incumbent Firm Honest Reassurance Communication Failure
type: IncumbentFirmCapacityHonestReassuranceCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incumbent Firm Capacity Honest Reassurance Communication Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to communicate honestly with former clients about Firm A's continued capacity, instead making adverse comments about Firm B's capability that crossed into prohibited disparagement
casecontext: Engineer A's reassurance communications to former clients crossed the line from permissible honest representation of Firm A's capabilities into prohibited disparagement of Firm B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Contacting former clients with adverse comments about Firm B's qualification to provide quality services, rather than limiting communications to honest, non-disparaging reassurance about Firm A's own continued capacity
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to conduct his contacts with former clients to reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity in a manner that was truthful
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to conduct his contacts with former clients to reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity in a manner that was truthful
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.934932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Incumbent Firm Principal
type: IncumbentFirmPrincipalDefendingAgainstCompetitorDisparagement
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Firm Principal / Head', 'firm': 'Firm A'}
caseinvolvement: Head of original engineering firm who lost four key engineers to a competing firm; contacted former clients to reassure them of continued capacity while also casting doubt on Firm B's qualifications, and formally protested the departing engineers' conduct as a violation of the supplanting rule.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:49.881792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:49.881792+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_to', 'target': 'Firm B'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'Four Departing Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Former Clients of Firm A'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Incumbent Firm Principal Defending Against Competitor Disparagement
sourcetext: a firm headed by Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds
textreferences: Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
textreferences: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions
textreferences: a firm headed by Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.915871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
type: MutualDisparagementCompetingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Principal of original engineering firm', 'conduct': "Disparaged Firm B's capability to former clients"}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A, the original firm principal, made adverse comments about the capability of Firm B (the four former employees) to provide adequate or quality services to former clients, motivated by competitive self-interest and the acrimonious nature of the departure, in violation of §12.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Firm B Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Four Departing Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_provider', 'target': 'Former Clients of Engineer A'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12
textreferences: the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.919304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry
type: MutualDisparagementNon-ExcuseSymmetryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that Firm B's disparagement of him did not excuse or justify his own disparagement of Firm B's qualifications to former clients, and that his non-disparagement obligations applied independently.
casecontext: Engineer A, having learned of Firm B's disparagement, proceeded to disparage Firm B in return — a symmetrical violation that the non-excuse principle prohibits.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A disparaged Firm B's qualifications despite having been the victim of Firm B's disparagement, failing to recognize the symmetry of the obligation
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
textreferences: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.927967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Recognition Failure
type: MutualDisparagementNon-ExcuseSymmetryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that Firm B's disparaging conduct did not excuse his own disparagement of Firm B's capabilities to former clients
casecontext: The BER found both parties independently in violation, refusing to enter into speculation about who 'threw the first stone' — each party's violation was independent and not excused by the other's conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Making adverse comments about Firm B's capability despite (or in response to) Firm B's adverse comments about Engineer A — both parties found independently in violation
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.934657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Predictive Disparagement of Firm B
type: PredictiveCompetitorIncapacityDisparagementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Predictive Competitor Incapacity Disparagement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that indicating doubt about Firm B's qualification to provide quality services — when contacting former clients — constituted impermissible disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation.
casecontext: Engineer A made disparaging representations about Firm B's qualifications to former clients during reassurance contacts, mirroring Firm B's conduct toward him.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services in discussions with former clients
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.926956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Comment About Firm B Capability §12 Violation
type: Self-Interest-TaintedAdverseCompetitorCommentPurposiveProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made adverse comments about Firm B's capacity to provide adequate or quality services when contacting former clients to reassure them, motivated by competitive self-interest rather than objective professional assessment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Competitor Comment Purposive Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from making adverse comments about Firm B's qualification to provide adequate or quality services to former clients when the purpose of those comments was to secure competitive advantage for Firm A, constituting a violation of §12 under the purposive interpretation from Case 75-15.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §12; BER Case 75-15; BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
temporalscope: During competitive solicitation contacts with former clients following departure of four engineers
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.932606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Interest-Tainted Capability Disparagement Violation
type: Self-Interest-TaintedCompetitiveCapabilityCritiqueProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made adverse capability comments about Firm B (the four former employees) to former clients during contacts intended to reassure clients of Engineer A's continued capacity
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Self-Interest-Tainted Competitive Capability Critique Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A violated the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation by making adverse comments about Firm B's capability to provide adequate or quality services to former clients, when such comments were motivated by the intent to injure Firm B's prospects and retain clients for personal competitive benefit.
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
temporalscope: During contacts with former clients following the departure of the four engineers to form Firm B
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.931376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Interest-Tainted Critique Prohibition Violation
type: Self-Interest-TaintedCompetitiveCapabilityCritiqueProhibitionSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Self-Interest-Tainted Competitive Capability Critique Prohibition Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that his adverse comments about Firm B's capability to former clients were self-interest-tainted and therefore prohibited
casecontext: Engineer A violated §12 by making adverse comments about Firm B's capability to former clients when motivated by competitive self-interest rather than objective professional concern
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Making adverse comments about Firm B's qualification to provide quality services to former clients, motivated by competitive self-interest in client retention — found to violate §12
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.934211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Interest Contaminated Criticism of Firm B
type: Self-InterestContaminatedInter-EngineerCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the competitive dispute following the departure of the four engineers and formation of Firm B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
stateclass: Self-Interest Contaminated Inter-Engineer Criticism State
subject: Engineer A's critical statements about Firm B's capacity to provide adequate or quality services
terminatedby: Not resolved in the text
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
triggeringevent: Competitive conflict arising from departure of four engineers and formation of competing Firm B
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.920010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Supplanting Protest Competitive Motivation Non-Weaponization
type: SupplantingProtestCompetitiveMotivationNon-WeaponizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed an ethics protest alleging that the four departing engineers violated the rule against supplanting, when in fact the former clients had projects under discussion but no specific selection or negotiation had taken place.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Supplanting Protest Competitive Motivation Non-Weaponization Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that his ethics protest alleging supplanting by Firm B was grounded in an accurate reading of the supplanting prohibition — specifically that active contracts or specific selection/negotiation were underway — and not motivated primarily by competitive self-interest, given that the former clients had no active contracts with Firm A at the time of Firm B's solicitation.
sourcetext: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the ethics protest against the four departing engineers
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.923609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Supplanting Protest Competitive Motivation Non-Weaponization §11(a) Misapplication
type: CompetitiveProtestPublicSafetyGroundingNon-PretextualBasisConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed an ethics protest alleging Firm B improperly supplanted him, but the BER found the supplanting rule inapplicable because Engineer A lacked the predicate contract or active negotiation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitive Protest Public Safety Grounding Non-Pretextual Basis Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from invoking the supplanting rule as a basis for an ethics protest against Firm B where the predicate conditions (existing contract or active negotiation) were not satisfied, as such use of the supplanting rule would constitute misapplication of the ethics code for competitive rather than legitimate professional purposes.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §11(a); BER Case 76-5; BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: We have often held that §11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
temporalscope: At the time of filing the ethics protest against Firm B
textreferences: Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: We have often held that §11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.933309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineer A Supplanting Rule Scope Discrimination
type: SupplantingRulePreciseScopeDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supplanting Rule Precise Scope Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to accurately assess whether Firm B's solicitation of former clients actually met the definition of supplanting before filing an ethics protest, to avoid weaponizing the supplanting rule for competitive purposes.
casecontext: Engineer A protested Firm B's conduct as supplanting; accurate application of the supplanting rule required recognizing that no active contracts were in place for the solicited clients.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Filing an ethics protest alleging supplanting by Firm B despite the absence of active contracts or specific selection/negotiation with the solicited clients
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.933601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Both Parties
type: EngineeringBusinessEthicsCompetitiveContextAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: Both Engineer A and Firm B needed the capability to recognize that the competitive business context of engineering practice does not suspend professional ethics obligations — including non-disparagement, honest representation, and the supplanting rule — and that business competition must be conducted within the bounds of professional ethics codes.
casecontext: The competitive dynamics of the case — firm departure, client solicitation, mutual disparagement — all occurred within the professional ethics framework governing engineering business conduct.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Both parties engaged in competitive solicitation of former clients while violating non-disparagement obligations, suggesting insufficient awareness that business competition does not suspend ethical duties
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A and Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
textreferences: Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
textreferences: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients
textreferences: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.929310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Ethical Complaint Formally Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Filing Ethical Complaint Against Four Engineers
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm A Client Reassurance Outreach
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm A Client Relationship Disrupted
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Collegial Non-Harm Competitive Context
type: CollegialNon-HarminCompetitiveContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B needed the capability to recognize its collegial obligation to refrain from casting doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services when contacting former clients, even in the context of competitive solicitation.
casecontext: Firm B's disparagement of Engineer A's capacity to former clients constituted a violation of collegial non-harm obligations in the competitive solicitation context.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Firm B cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services when contacting former clients, violating collegial non-harm obligations
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.929143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Competitive Solicitation Motivation Transparency Reporting Context
type: CompetitivePeerMisconductReportingMotivationTransparencyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed an ethics protest against the four departing engineers while simultaneously competing with Firm B for the same former clients.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, in filing his ethics protest against Firm B, was obligated to be transparent about his competitive relationship with Firm B and to ensure the protest was factually grounded rather than primarily a competitive tactic, so that the receiving ethics body could assess the report's context appropriately.
sourcetext: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
temporalscope: At the time of filing the ethics protest against the four departing engineers
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.924243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Competitor Reputation Injury Disparagement of Engineer A
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Clients reported to Engineer A that Firm B had cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services during competitive solicitation contacts.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Firm B (four departing engineers)
constraintclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm B was prohibited from casting doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services when contacting former clients, as such statements constitute an attempt to injure the professional reputation, prospects, and practice of Engineer A in violation of NSPE Code Section III.7.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; BER Case 75-15
sourcetext: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During Firm B's post-departure solicitation contacts with former Firm A clients
textreferences: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.924579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Departing Engineer Honest Solicitation Representation
type: DepartingEngineerClientSolicitationHonestRepresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honest Representation Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B needed the capability to conduct its solicitation of former clients of Firm A in a manner that was truthful, non-misleading, and did not contain false or disparaging statements about Engineer A's remaining capacity.
casecontext: Firm B's solicitation contacts were permissible in their competitive purpose but impermissible in their disparaging content regarding Engineer A.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Firm B's solicitation communications included disparaging representations about Engineer A's ability to provide quality services, violating the honest representation obligation
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
textreferences: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.928278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Disparagement of Engineer A Capability to Former Clients
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryThroughPredictiveDisparagementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: During solicitation contacts with former clients of Firm A, Firm B made representations that cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm B (four departing engineers)
obligationclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Through Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm B was obligated to refrain from casting doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services when contacting former clients, as such representations constitute disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation in violation of the engineer's duties of honesty, fairness, and collegial respect.
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During solicitation contacts with former clients of Firm A following formation of Firm B
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.922869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Disparages Firm A Capability
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Disparages Firm A Capability → Professional Reputation Damage Realized
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
type: MutualDisparagementCompetingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineers', 'position': 'Principals/members of newly formed Firm B', 'conduct': "Disparaged Engineer A's capability to former clients"}
caseinvolvement: The four engineers of Firm B made adverse comments about Engineer A's capability to provide adequate or quality services to former clients of Engineer A, motivated by competitive self-interest following the acrimonious departure, in violation of §12.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employee', 'target': "Engineer A's firm"}
relationships: {'type': 'soliciting', 'target': 'Former Clients of Engineer A'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12
textreferences: the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.919451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Recognition Failure
type: MutualDisparagementNon-ExcuseSymmetryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The four engineers of Firm B failed to recognize that Engineer A's disparaging conduct did not excuse their own disparagement of Engineer A's capabilities to former clients
casecontext: The BER found both parties independently in violation, refusing to enter into speculation about who 'threw the first stone' — each party's violation was independent and not excused by the other's conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Making adverse comments about Engineer A's ability to provide quality services despite (or in response to) Engineer A's adverse comments about Firm B — both parties found independently in violation
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers of Firm B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.934793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Pre-Departure Internal Discussion Non-Violation Recognition
type: Pre-DepartureInternalSolicitationDiscussionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four engineers discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting former clients while still employed by Engineer A, but did not make actual client contact or enter negotiations until after departure
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Four departing engineers of Firm B and ethics adjudicators
obligationclass: Pre-Departure Internal Solicitation Discussion Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The four engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients of Engineer A while still employed did not constitute a violation of the pre-departure promotional prohibition under a literal reading of the applicable code provision, because no actual promotional efforts or negotiations with clients occurred while they remained employed.
sourcetext: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
temporalscope: During the period of employment with Engineer A, prior to departure
textreferences: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.930935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Pre-Departure Internal Discussion Non-Violation §7(a) Literal Reading
type: Pre-DepartureInternalPlanningWithoutOvertActionNon-ViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four engineers discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work from former clients of Engineer A while still employed, but took no overt promotional action during the employment period
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Four engineers of Firm B while still employed by Engineer A
constraintclass: Pre-Departure Internal Planning Without Overt Action Non-Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: The four engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients of Engineer A while still employed did not constitute a violation of §7(a) under a literal reading of the code, because they did not undertake promotional efforts with former clients or engage in negotiations for work while still employed.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §7(a); BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: As we understand the facts, however, the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A.
temporalscope: Period of employment with Engineer A prior to departure
textreferences: As we understand the facts, however, the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A.
textreferences: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.932307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Comment About Engineer A Capability §12 Violation
type: Self-Interest-TaintedAdverseCompetitorCommentPurposiveProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B's engineers made adverse comments about Engineer A's capacity to provide adequate or quality services when contacting former clients, motivated by competitive self-interest rather than objective professional assessment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Four engineers of Firm B
constraintclass: Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Competitor Comment Purposive Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: The four engineers of Firm B were prohibited from making adverse comments about Engineer A's capability to provide adequate or quality services to former clients when the purpose of those comments was to secure competitive advantage for Firm B, constituting a violation of §12 under the purposive interpretation from Case 75-15.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §12; BER Case 75-15; BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
temporalscope: During competitive solicitation of former clients of Engineer A following departure
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.932458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Self-Interest-Tainted Capability Disparagement Violation
type: Self-Interest-TaintedCompetitiveCapabilityCritiqueProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B engineers made adverse capability comments about Engineer A to former clients during competitive solicitation contacts
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Four departing engineers of Firm B
obligationclass: Self-Interest-Tainted Competitive Capability Critique Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: The four engineers of Firm B violated the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation by making adverse comments about Engineer A's capability to provide adequate or quality services to former clients, when such comments were motivated by the intent to injure Engineer A's prospects and secure personal competitive benefit.
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
temporalscope: During competitive solicitation of former clients of Engineer A following formation of Firm B
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.931235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Self-Interest-Tainted Critique Prohibition Violation
type: Self-Interest-TaintedCompetitiveCapabilityCritiqueProhibitionSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Self-Interest-Tainted Competitive Capability Critique Prohibition Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The four engineers of Firm B lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that their adverse comments about Engineer A's capability to former clients were self-interest-tainted and therefore prohibited
casecontext: The four engineers of Firm B violated §12 by making adverse comments about Engineer A's capability to former clients when motivated by competitive self-interest rather than objective professional concern
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Making adverse comments about Engineer A's ability to provide quality services to former clients, motivated by competitive self-interest in client acquisition — found to violate §12
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers of Firm B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.934356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee Engineer
type: Specialized-Knowledge-ExploitingDepartingEmployeeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineers', 'position': 'Former employees of Engineer A, now principals/members of Firm B', 'conduct': 'Solicited former clients on specific projects for which specialized knowledge was gained during employment'}
caseinvolvement: One or more of the four engineers who left Engineer A had been involved with former clients of A on specific projects while in his employ, and upon departure solicited or performed work for those same clients on those specific projects, potentially without consent of all interested parties, implicating §7(a).
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'co-principal', 'target': 'Other Firm B Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employee', 'target': "Engineer A's firm"}
relationships: {'type': 'soliciting', 'target': 'Former Clients of Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee Engineer
sourcetext: in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time
textreferences: as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge
textreferences: in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.919671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment
type: DepartingEmployeeSpecializedKnowledgeCompetitiveRestrictionSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Employee Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: One or more of the four engineers who left Engineer A had been involved with former clients on specific projects while employed, triggering the specialized knowledge competitive restriction under §7(a)
casecontext: The BER found that the latter portion of §7(a) — regarding practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge — was not clearly resolved and created a constraint on competition for specific projects
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Involvement with former clients of Engineer A on specific projects while employed, creating a specialized knowledge constraint on competing for those specific projects without consent
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: One or More Engineers of Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: We are told that in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.934040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Specialized Knowledge Constraint Specific Projects Former Clients
type: SpecializedKnowledgePost-DepartureCompetitionConstraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: One or more of the four departing engineers had been involved with former clients of Engineer A on specific projects while in his employ, and subsequently solicited those same clients for the same or related work after forming Firm B
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: One or more of the four departing engineers of Firm B
obligationclass: Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Constraint Obligation
obligationstatement: One or more of the four engineers who left Engineer A were constrained from competing for specific projects of former clients of Engineer A on which they had gained particular and specialized knowledge while employed by Engineer A, without the consent of all interested parties.
sourcetext: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
temporalscope: Upon solicitation of former clients for projects involving specialized knowledge gained during employment
textreferences: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: We are told that in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.931071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Specialized Project Knowledge Consent Requirement Specific Former Client Projects
type: EmployedEngineerSpecializedProjectKnowledgeConsent-RequiredCompetitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four engineers departed Engineer A's firm and formed Firm B; one or more had been involved with specific former clients of Engineer A on particular projects while employed, creating a §7(a) specialized knowledge constraint on competing for those specific projects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: One or more of the four engineers of Firm B who had been involved with specific former clients of Engineer A on particular projects while employed
constraintclass: Employed Engineer Specialized Project Knowledge Consent-Required Competition Constraint
constraintstatement: Those engineers of Firm B who had gained particular and specialized knowledge in connection with specific projects for Engineer A's clients while employed by Engineer A were constrained from engaging in promotional efforts or negotiations for work on those specific projects without the consent of all interested parties.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §7(a); BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
temporalscope: Post-departure from Engineer A's firm; applicable to specific projects for which specialized knowledge was gained during employment
textreferences: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: We are told that in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.932153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Engineers Supplanting Rule Non-Application Former Clients No Active Contract
type: FormerClientNo-Active-ContractSolicitationPermissibilityRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four engineers departed Firm A and formed Firm B, then solicited former clients of Engineer A who had no active contract with Engineer A
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Four departing engineers of Firm B
obligationclass: Former Client No-Active-Contract Solicitation Permissibility Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from former clients of Engineer A because Engineer A had no existing contract and was not engaged in negotiations for a particular project at the time of solicitation.
sourcetext: Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
temporalscope: Upon formation of Firm B and initiation of client solicitation
textreferences: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.929464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Former Employer Capacity Predictive Disparagement
type: FormerEmployerCapacityPredictiveDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The four departed engineers, having caused the staffing reduction at Firm A, then used that staffing change as a basis for casting doubt on Firm A's remaining capacity — a particularly aggravated form of predictive disparagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Firm B (four departing engineers)
constraintclass: Former Employer Capacity Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm B was prohibited from making predictive representations to former Firm A clients that Engineer A would be unable to provide quality services following the departure of the four engineers, particularly given that the departing engineers themselves caused the staffing change they were using as the basis for the capacity doubt.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; BER Case 75-15
sourcetext: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During Firm B's post-departure solicitation contacts
textreferences: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.924728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Honest Non-Deceptive Competitive Solicitation Communication
type: TruthfulandNon-DeceptiveAdvertisingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B contacted former clients of Firm A to indicate availability for assignments, during which it cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm B (four departing engineers)
obligationclass: Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm B was obligated to conduct its solicitation communications with former clients of Firm A in a manner that was truthful, not misleading, and not deceptive — including refraining from making unsubstantiated negative representations about Engineer A's capability to provide quality services.
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During solicitation contacts with former clients of Firm A
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.923775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Improper Competitive Method Disparagement Prohibition
type: ImproperCompetitiveMethodProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B's casting of doubt on Engineer A's capacity during client solicitation contacts constitutes an improper competitive method prohibited by the ethics code.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Firm B (four departing engineers)
constraintclass: Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm B was prohibited from attempting to obtain engineering assignments from former Firm A clients through the improper method of casting doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services, as this constitutes obtaining competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.6; BER Case 75-15
sourcetext: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During Firm B's post-departure solicitation contacts
textreferences: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.926076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry
type: MutualDisparagementNon-ExcuseSymmetryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B needed the capability to recognize that its own non-disparagement obligations applied independently of whether Engineer A was also disparaging Firm B, and that Engineer A's conduct did not excuse Firm B's disparagement of Engineer A.
casecontext: Both parties engaged in mutual disparagement; each was independently obligated to refrain regardless of the other's conduct.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Firm B's disparagement of Engineer A's capacity occurred independently of and was not excused by Engineer A's reciprocal disparagement of Firm B
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.927799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B No-Compete Absence Ethical Obligation Persistence
type: No-CompeteAgreementAbsenceEthicalObligationPersistenceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: No-Compete Agreement Absence Ethical Obligation Persistence Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The four departing engineers needed the capability to recognize that the absence of a formal no-compete agreement with Firm A did not eliminate their ethical obligations regarding honest representation, non-disparagement, and specialized knowledge restrictions when soliciting former clients.
casecontext: No no-compete agreement is mentioned; the ethical obligations regarding non-disparagement and specialized knowledge restrictions applied independently of any contractual constraint.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The departing engineers proceeded to solicit former clients and disparage Engineer A, apparently treating the absence of contractual restrictions as eliminating ethical constraints
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
textreferences: Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.928874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Non-Supplanting Permissibility Former Client Solicitation
type: Post-EmploymentFormerEmployerClientCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four engineers departed Firm A and formed Firm B, then solicited former clients of Firm A including those with projects under discussion but no specific selection or negotiation underway.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm B (four departing engineers)
obligationclass: Post-Employment Former Employer Client Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm B was obligated to recognize that soliciting former clients of Firm A for whom no active contract or specific selection/negotiation was underway was ethically permissible and did not constitute improper supplanting, provided solicitation was conducted honestly and without disparagement.
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
temporalscope: At the time of solicitation contact with former clients of Firm A
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.922660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Pre-Award Client Solicitation Without Supplanting Violation
type: Pre-AwardProspectiveClientCompetitiveSolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Following departure of four engineers from Engineer A's firm through their competitive outreach to former clients
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B (four departing engineers)
affectedparties: Former clients of Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
stateclass: Pre-Award Prospective Client Competitive Solicitation State
subject: Firm B's solicitation of Engineer A's former clients where no contract or negotiation for specific work existed
terminatedby: Not resolved in the text; supplanting rule found inapplicable
textreferences: Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
triggeringevent: Formation of Firm B and initiation of competitive solicitation of Engineer A's former clients
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.920376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Predictive Disparagement of Engineer A
type: PredictiveCompetitorIncapacityDisparagementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Predictive Competitor Incapacity Disparagement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B needed the capability to recognize that casting doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services — based on the departure of the four engineers — constituted impermissible predictive disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation.
casecontext: Firm B made disparaging representations about Engineer A's remaining capacity to former clients during competitive solicitation contacts.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Firm B cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services when contacting former clients, as reported to Engineer A by those clients
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.926820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Self-Interest Contaminated Criticism of Engineer A
type: Self-InterestContaminatedInter-EngineerCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the competitive dispute following the departure of the four engineers and formation of Firm B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B (four departing engineers)
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
stateclass: Self-Interest Contaminated Inter-Engineer Criticism State
subject: Firm B's (four departing engineers') critical statements about Engineer A's capacity to provide adequate or quality services
terminatedby: Not resolved in the text
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
triggeringevent: Competitive conflict arising from acrimonious departure and formation of competing firm
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.920205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Competitive Restriction
type: DepartingEmployeeSpecializedKnowledgeCompetitiveRestrictionSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Employee Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: One or more of the four departing engineers needed the capability to self-assess whether their involvement with specific former clients of Engineer A while employed at Firm A created specialized knowledge that ethically restricted their ability to compete for those specific clients without consent.
casecontext: The case specifically notes that in some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ, raising the specialized knowledge restriction question.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: One or more of the four engineers had been involved with former clients of Engineer A while in his employ and subsequently solicited those same clients for Firm B
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: One or more of the Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
textreferences: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.928565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Project Competition Constraint
type: SpecializedKnowledgePost-DepartureCompetitionConstraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ, and upon forming Firm B solicited those same clients.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm B engineers who had prior project involvement with former clients
obligationclass: Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Constraint Obligation
obligationstatement: Those engineers of Firm B who had been involved with specific former clients of Engineer A on particular projects while employed there were obligated to refrain from competing for those specific projects using specialized knowledge gained during that employment, unless the former employer or affected client consented.
sourcetext: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
temporalscope: At the time of solicitation of former clients with whom the engineers had prior project-specific involvement
textreferences: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.923293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Project Solicitation Restriction
type: SpecializedKnowledgePost-DepartureCompetitionRestrictionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ, creating a specialized knowledge restriction on competition for those specific projects.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm B engineers who had project-specific involvement with former Firm A clients
constraintclass: Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Restriction Constraint
constraintstatement: Those engineers of Firm B who had been involved with specific former clients of Engineer A on particular projects while employed at Firm A were restricted from competing for those specific projects using the specialized knowledge gained during that employment, though they were not prohibited from competing generally for other work from those clients.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 77-11; NSPE Code faithful agent provisions
sourcetext: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
temporalscope: Post-departure competitive solicitation period
textreferences: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.925309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Specialized Project Knowledge Solicitation Restriction
type: SpecializedProjectKnowledgeConsentRequirementActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of departure from Engineer A's firm through solicitation of former clients on those specific projects
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B (four departing engineers)
affectedparties: Former clients of Engineer A with specific projects under consideration
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
stateclass: Specialized Project Knowledge Consent Requirement Activation State
subject: One or more of the four departing engineers of Firm B who had been involved with specific projects of Engineer A's clients while still employed by Engineer A
terminatedby: Not resolved in the text; consent question left open
textreferences: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: We are told that in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time.
triggeringevent: Departure of four engineers from Engineer A's firm, combined with their prior involvement in specific client projects during employment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.919155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Supplanting Allegation Against Departing Engineers
type: Post-DepartureFormerClientSolicitationSupplantingAllegationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Firm B contacted former Firm A clients through resolution of the ethical dispute
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Former clients of Firm A
affectedparties: Four departed engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
stateclass: Post-Departure Former Client Solicitation Supplanting Allegation State
subject: Competitive relationship between Firm A (Engineer A) and Firm B (four departed engineers)
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — ongoing ethical dispute
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
triggeringevent: Firm B's prompt contact with former Firm A clients, including those with projects under discussion but not formally awarded
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.916595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Supplanting Rule Non-Application Former Clients No Contract No Negotiation
type: Pre-AwardProspectiveClientSupplantingRuleNon-ApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged that Firm B improperly supplanted him with former clients; the BER found the supplanting rule inapplicable because Engineer A had no existing contract and was not in active negotiation for specific projects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Four engineers of Firm B
constraintclass: Pre-Award Prospective Client Supplanting Rule Non-Application Constraint
constraintstatement: The supplanting rule under §11(a) did not apply to Firm B's solicitation of Engineer A's former clients because Engineer A had neither an existing contract nor was engaged in active negotiations for particular projects with those clients at the time of Firm B's contacts.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §11(a); BER Case 76-5; BER Cases 62-10, 62-18, 64-9, 73-7; BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: We have often held that §11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
temporalscope: At the time of Firm B's solicitation contacts with former clients of Engineer A
textreferences: As most recently stated in Case 76-5, '…for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work…'
textreferences: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: We have often held that §11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.933127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Supplanting Rule Non-Application Pre-Award Clients
type: Pre-AwardProspectiveClientSupplantingRuleNon-ApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged that Firm B violated the supplanting rule by contacting former Firm A clients; the constraint establishes that the rule does not apply where no contract or active negotiation existed.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Firm B (four departing engineers)
constraintclass: Pre-Award Prospective Client Supplanting Rule Non-Application Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm B's solicitation of former Firm A clients for whom no contract or specific selection/negotiation was underway did not constitute a violation of the supplanting rule, because the predicate conditions for that rule — an existing contract or active negotiation — were not satisfied.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 76-5; NSPE Code Section II.5 (supplanting provision)
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
temporalscope: At the time of Firm B's post-departure client contacts
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.924407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B Supplanting Rule Scope Discrimination
type: SupplantingRulePreciseScopeDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supplanting Rule Precise Scope Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B needed the capability to correctly determine that soliciting former clients of Firm A for whom no active contract or specific selection/negotiation was underway did not constitute impermissible supplanting under professional ethics codes.
casecontext: Firm B contacted former clients of Firm A promptly after formation; Engineer A protested alleging supplanting; the ethical analysis required precise discrimination of the supplanting rule's scope.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Solicitation of former clients of Firm A, including those with projects under discussion but for which no specific selection or negotiation had taken place
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.926687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Firm B contacting former clients overlaps Engineer A contacting former clients
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

First Stone Non-Determinative Both Parties §12 Symmetric Violation No Excuse
type: First-StoneNon-DeterminativeMutualDisparagementSymmetricViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Following a contentious 'divorce' between Engineer A and four departing engineers, both parties engaged in mutual disparagement of the other's capacity; the BER refused to determine who threw the first stone and found both parties in violation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A and four engineers of Firm B
constraintclass: First-Stone Non-Determinative Mutual Disparagement Symmetric Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Neither Engineer A nor the four engineers of Firm B could invoke the other's prior disparaging conduct as a justification or excuse for their own §12 violation; the BER declined to adjudicate who initiated the exchange, finding both parties independently in clear error.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §12; BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
temporalscope: Throughout the competitive solicitation dispute following departure of four engineers
textreferences: It is easy to understand that in such a case where the 'divorce' of A and the four engineers was on a note of disagreement, each interest felt compelled to react to the other's claims or statements.
textreferences: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.932938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Formation of Competing Firm
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Formation of Competing Firm → Competitive Market Conflict Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Invoked for Firm B Engineers
type: Former-ClientSolicitationWithoutActive-ContractSupplantingPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Solicitation of former clients of Engineer A by Firm B
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from former clients of Engineer A because Engineer A had no existing contract and was not engaged in negotiations for a particular project with those clients at the time of Firm B's solicitation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The supplanting prohibition applies only when the complaining engineer has a contract for the work or has been selected for negotiation for the particular work; absent those conditions, solicitation of former clients is permissible competitive activity
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
tensionresolution: Free and open competition prevails where no active contractual or negotiation relationship exists; the supplanting rule does not create a proprietary right over former clients
textreferences: Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.929643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Applied to Firm B
type: Former-ClientSolicitationWithoutActive-ContractSupplantingPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Former clients of Firm A with projects under discussion but no active contract or formal selection
balancingwith: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
balancingwith: Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period as Ethical Transition Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B's solicitation of former clients of Firm A who had projects under discussion but for whom specific selection or negotiation had not taken place does not constitute impermissible supplanting, because the supplanting prohibition applies only where a client has formally engaged or is in active negotiation with an incumbent engineer
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical line between permissible competitive solicitation and impermissible supplanting is drawn at the point of formal engagement or active negotiation; clients who have not crossed that threshold are legitimate targets of competitive solicitation by departing engineers
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
tensionresolution: The supplanting allegation by Engineer A fails with respect to clients who had no active contract; it may have merit with respect to clients where specialized knowledge was involved or where active negotiation had begun
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.922034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Former Client Solicitation Exposure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Former Clients of Engineer A Stakeholder
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship': 'Former clients of Engineer A with no current active contract', 'status': 'Targets of competitive solicitation by both parties'}
caseinvolvement: Former clients of Engineer A who had no active contract with Engineer A at the time of solicitation and were contacted by both Engineer A and Firm B's engineers, receiving disparaging statements about each party from the other.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:33.575681+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'former_client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Firm B Engineers'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A
textreferences: the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.919829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Former Clients of Firm A
type: EngineeringServicesClientTargetedbyCompetitorDisparagement
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship_status': 'Former clients; some with pending projects under discussion', 'role_in_case': 'Recipients of competing solicitations and disparaging communications'}
caseinvolvement: Former clients of Firm A, some with projects under active discussion, who were contacted by both Firm B (with disparaging remarks about Firm A) and Engineer A (with disparaging remarks about Firm B), and who relayed Firm B's disparaging statements back to Engineer A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:49.881792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:49.881792+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'contacted_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_client_of', 'target': 'Firm A / Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Firm B / Four Departing Engineers'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Engineering Services Client Targeted by Competitor Disparagement
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A
textreferences: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.916340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Departing Engineers At-Will Departure Competitive Formation Non-Violation
type: FreeEnterpriseDepartureRightNon-Ethical-ProscriptionRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four key engineers left Firm A simultaneously following policy disagreements and promptly organized Firm B as a competing engineering firm.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Four departing engineers (Firm B principals)
obligationclass: Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The four departing engineers were entitled to recognize that their simultaneous departure from Firm A following policy disagreements and formation of a competing firm raised no general ethical proscription, and that any ethical constraints must be grounded in specific Code provisions rather than a general presumption against competitive departure.
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
temporalscope: At the time of departure from Firm A and formation of Firm B
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.923431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Departing Engineers At-Will Departure Non-Violation Recognition
type: At-WillDepartureSimultaneousGroupCompetitiveFormationNon-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: At-Will Departure Simultaneous Group Competitive Formation Non-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The four departing engineers correctly exercised their right to simultaneously depart and form a competing firm, conduct found not to constitute an ethical violation in itself
casecontext: The BER found that the simultaneous departure and formation of a competing firm did not in itself constitute an ethical violation, consistent with at-will employment and free enterprise principles
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Simultaneous voluntary departure from Firm A following policy disagreements and immediate co-founding of Firm B — conduct found permissible under at-will employment and free enterprise principles
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers of Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A
textreferences: the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A
textreferences: the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Departing Engineers At-Will Group Formation Non-Violation
type: At-WillDepartureSimultaneousGroupCompetitiveFormationNon-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: At-Will Departure Simultaneous Group Competitive Formation Non-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The four departing engineers needed the capability to recognize that their simultaneous departure from Firm A following policy disagreements and immediate formation of Firm B did not in itself constitute an ethical violation, provided their subsequent conduct complied with non-disparagement, non-supplanting, and confidentiality obligations.
casecontext: The simultaneous coordinated departure and immediate competitive firm formation was the predicate act that Engineer A protested; recognizing its permissibility was essential to correct ethical analysis.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Four engineers simultaneously departed Firm A following policy disagreements and immediately co-founded Firm B as a competing firm
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:49.260555+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers / Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.928705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
type: DepartingEngineerFormingCompetingFirmandSolicitingFormerClients
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': "Professional Engineer (implied as 'key engineering employees')", 'position': 'Principals of Firm B', 'prior_firm': 'Firm A', 'new_firm': 'Firm B'}
caseinvolvement: Four key engineers who left Firm A following policy disagreements, immediately co-founded Firm B, and promptly solicited Firm A's former clients — including those with projects under active discussion — while allegedly casting doubt on Firm A's ability to provide quality services.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:49.881792+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:49.881792+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_to', 'target': 'Engineer A / Firm A'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employee_of', 'target': 'Engineer A / Firm A'}
relationships: {'type': 'soliciting', 'target': 'Former Clients of Firm A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Departing Engineer Forming Competing Firm and Soliciting Former Clients
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
textreferences: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.916117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Departing Engineers Pre-Departure Discussion Non-Violation Recognition
type: Pre-DepartureInternalSolicitationDiscussionNon-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Departure Internal Solicitation Discussion Non-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The four departing engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients while still employed did not constitute a violation, and the BER recognized this distinction
casecontext: The BER found that internal pre-departure discussions about future solicitation, without actual promotional efforts or negotiations with clients, did not violate the code
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Internal discussions among the four engineers about soliciting former clients of Engineer A while still employed — found not to constitute a violation under a literal reading of §7(a)
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers of Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
textreferences: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.933899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Departing Engineers Supplanting Rule Scope Discrimination
type: SupplantingRulePreciseScopeDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supplanting Rule Precise Scope Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: The four departing engineers correctly (by outcome) solicited former clients of Engineer A where no active contract or negotiation existed, consistent with the supplanting rule's scope
casecontext: The BER found that the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from former clients of Engineer A because no active contract or negotiation existed
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Solicitation of former clients of Engineer A for whom no active contract or specific selection/negotiation was underway — conduct found permissible under the supplanting rule
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:32.315262+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Four Departing Engineers of Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A
textreferences: the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.933762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Engineers At-Will Departure Firm B Formation Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition
type: No-Written-Non-CompetePost-DepartureCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Four key engineers departed Engineer A's firm following policy disagreements and formed Firm B; no written non-compete agreement governed their post-departure conduct
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Four engineers who departed Engineer A's firm to form Firm B
constraintclass: No-Written-Non-Compete Post-Departure Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: In the absence of a written non-compete agreement, the four engineers' voluntary departure from Engineer A's firm following policy disagreements and their formation of Firm B did not constitute an ethics violation, and their subsequent solicitation of former clients (for whom no contract or active negotiation existed) was permissible under the free and open competition framework.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:28.442531+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §7(a), §11(a); BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
temporalscope: Post-departure from Engineer A's firm
textreferences: As we understand the facts, however, the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A.
textreferences: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.933458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Four Engineers Pre-Departure Solicitation Planning Without Overt Action
type: At-WillProfessionalMobilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: While the four engineers were still employed by Engineer A, prior to departure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Four departing engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:44.069939+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
stateclass: At-Will Professional Mobility State
subject: The four engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients while still employed by Engineer A, without overt promotional action
terminatedby: Departure from Engineer A's firm
textreferences: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
triggeringevent: Internal discussions among the four engineers about future competitive plans
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.920533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Boundary Invoked to Permit Firm B Client Solicitation
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Solicitation of Engineer A's former clients by Firm B after departure
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board affirmed that free and open competition permits Firm B engineers to solicit former clients of Engineer A where no active contract or negotiation existed, treating competitive solicitation of uncontracted former clients as within the ethical boundary of permissible competition
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Free and open competition is a foundational boundary condition that permits engineers to solicit former clients of prior employers absent active contractual or negotiation relationships; the ethics code does not grant incumbent engineers proprietary rights over uncontracted former clients
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: We have often held that §11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
tensionresolution: Free competition prevails for uncontracted former clients; the specialized knowledge constraint operates as a targeted exception rather than a general limitation on competitive solicitation
textreferences: To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
textreferences: We have often held that §11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.930800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Framework Governing Engineering Firm Competition
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the competitive solicitation period following Firm B's formation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Former clients
affectedparties: Four departed engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
stateclass: Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
subject: The legal and ethical framework governing competitive conduct between Firm A and Firm B in soliciting former clients
terminatedby: Not terminated — ongoing competitive marketplace condition
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
textreferences: While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients, Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients
triggeringevent: Formation of Firm B as a competing engineering enterprise in the same market
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.917463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Framework Governing Firm A Firm B Competition
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionRegulatoryDeferenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The legal and ethical framework governing competitive conduct between Firm A and Firm B in soliciting former clients establishes that free and open competition is a basic rule that constrains how the ethics code is applied to post-departure solicitation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Both Engineer A / Firm A and Firm B
constraintclass: Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference Constraint
constraintstatement: Both Firm A and Firm B were required to conduct their competitive solicitation activities in conformance with the free and open competition framework governing engineering services, which permits post-departure solicitation of former clients absent contractual restrictions, and which the BER is not positioned to override.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Local, state, and federal laws and regulations governing free and open competition; NSPE Code
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
temporalscope: Throughout the competitive solicitation period
textreferences: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.925777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Invoked for Firm B Solicitation of Former Clients
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Solicitation of former clients of Firm A with projects under discussion but no active contract
balancingwith: Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B's solicitation of former clients of Firm A who had no active contract is evaluated against the principle that free and open competition is a basic ethical rule, meaning such solicitation is not inherently impermissible absent a formal engagement relationship
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Free and open competition permits departing engineers to solicit former employer clients, provided no active contractual relationship exists and no other ethical constraints (e.g., specialized knowledge, disparagement) are violated
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
tensionresolution: The competitive freedom principle supports Firm B's solicitation of uncontracted former clients; the ethical violation, if any, lies in the manner of solicitation (disparagement), not the solicitation itself
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.920722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Honesty Obligation in Competitive Solicitation Communications
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive solicitation communications with former clients
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both Engineer A and Firm B's communications with former clients about each other's capabilities must satisfy the honesty obligation; casting doubt on a competitor's qualifications without factual basis violates the honesty principle as well as the disparagement prohibition
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends to competitive solicitation contexts; engineers may not make false or misleading statements about competitor capability even when motivated by competitive self-interest
invokedby: Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services. In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
tensionresolution: Honesty and the disparagement prohibition are mutually reinforcing; both require that competitive communications be factually grounded and not designed to create false impressions about competitor capability
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.922192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Capacity Disparagement Between Firm A and Firm B
type: MutualReciprocalCompetitorCapacityDisparagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the period of competitive client solicitation following Firm B's formation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Former clients of Firm A
affectedparties: Four departed engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
stateclass: Mutual Reciprocal Competitor Capacity Disparagement State
subject: Simultaneous competitive disparagement by both Firm A and Firm B directed at each other's qualifications
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — ongoing competitive solicitation period
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
triggeringevent: Firm B's statements to clients casting doubt on Firm A's ability to provide quality services, followed by Engineer A's reciprocal statements doubting Firm B's qualifications
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.916786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Competitive Disparagement Symmetry Applied to Both Parties
type: MutualCompetitiveDisparagementSymmetryPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive solicitation communications with former clients of Firm A
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both Engineer A and Firm B engaged in disparaging the other's capability to former clients; neither party's violation is excused by the other's, and both are equally subject to ethical condemnation for their respective disparagement conduct
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The symmetry of ethical violation means the ethics analysis must condemn both parties' disparagement conduct; Engineer A cannot invoke Firm B's disparagement as a defense, and Firm B's conduct does not mitigate Engineer A's violation
invokedby: Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Mutual Competitive Disparagement Symmetry Principle
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services. In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
tensionresolution: Both parties violated the same prohibition; the appropriate resolution is that both are found to have acted unethically with respect to disparagement, independent of the separate question of whether Firm B's solicitation itself was permissible
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.921875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Disparagement Incident
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Disparagement Incident → Ethical Complaint Formally Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Disparagement Independent Ethical Responsibility Both Parties No First-Stone Excuse
type: MutualCompetitiveDisparagementIndependentEthicalResponsibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both Engineer A and Firm B engineers made adverse capability comments to former clients; each party's violation was assessed independently without regard to which party acted first
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A and Firm B engineers
obligationclass: Mutual Competitive Disparagement Independent Ethical Responsibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Both Engineer A and the four engineers of Firm B bore independent ethical responsibility for their respective disparaging communications about the other's capability, with neither party's violation excused by the other's conduct; the Board declined to speculate about which party initiated the disparagement, finding both parties in clear error.
sourcetext: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
temporalscope: During the competitive solicitation period following Firm B's formation
textreferences: It is easy to understand that in such a case where the 'divorce' of A and the four engineers was on a note of disagreement, each interest felt compelled to react to the other's claims or statements.
textreferences: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.931699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Both Parties
type: MutualDisparagementNon-ExcuseSymmetryComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both Engineer A and Firm B engaged in disparaging the other's capability to former clients during competitive solicitation contacts; each party's violation is independent and symmetrical.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:25.852848+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A and Firm B (four departing engineers)
obligationclass: Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Both Engineer A and Firm B were independently obligated to refrain from disparaging the other's capability to former clients; neither party's violation excuses or mitigates the other's, and each bears independent ethical responsibility for their own communications.
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: During the period of competitive solicitation contacts with former clients of Firm A
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.923156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Disparagement Symmetry Invoked Against Both Engineer A and Firm B Engineers
type: MutualCompetitiveDisparagementSymmetryPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Adverse capability comments made by Engineer A about Firm B
appliedto: Adverse capability comments made by Firm B engineers about Engineer A
balancingwith: Disinterested Professional Duty to Report Peer Misconduct
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both Engineer A and the four engineers of Firm B made adverse comments about the other's capability to serve former clients; the Board found both parties in clear error, refusing to determine who 'threw the first stone' and applying the prohibition symmetrically
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique applies equally to both parties in a mutual disparagement scenario; neither party's violation is excused or mitigated by the other's misconduct, and the Board declines to adjudicate priority of wrongdoing
invokedby: Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Mutual Competitive Disparagement Symmetry Principle
sourcetext: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
tensionresolution: The symmetry principle forecloses any tu quoque defense; both parties bear independent ethical obligations that are not discharged by the other's breach
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.930129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Mutual Disparagement Symmetry Non-Excuse Both Parties
type: MutualDisparagementSymmetryNon-ExcuseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both Engineer A and Firm B engaged in mutual disparagement of each other's capacity to former clients; the constraint establishes that neither party's violation excuses the other's.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A and Firm B (four departing engineers)
constraintclass: Mutual Disparagement Symmetry Non-Excuse Constraint
constraintstatement: Neither Engineer A nor Firm B could invoke the other party's disparaging conduct as a justification or excuse for its own disparagement; each party was independently and fully bound by the prohibition on injuring the other's professional reputation regardless of the other's conduct.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; BER Case 75-15
sourcetext: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: Throughout the competitive solicitation period following Firm B's formation
textreferences: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.925056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Competition-Solicitation
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting
usedby: Engineer A (in protest), Firm B engineers, BER in analysis
usedincontext: Governs the ethical obligations of engineers when leaving a firm, soliciting former clients, and making statements about competitors' qualifications; provides the rule against supplanting and prohibitions on disparaging competitors
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.914822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_11
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 11: Unfair Competition
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The Engineer will not compete unfairly with another engineer by attempting to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by competitive bidding, by taking advantage of a salaried position, by criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
textreferences: The Engineer will not compete unfairly with another engineer by attempting to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by competitive bidding, by taking advantage of a salaried position, by criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in framing the competitive conduct of both parties
usedincontext: Establishes the general prohibition against competing unfairly by criticizing other engineers or using improper methods to obtain employment or advancement
version: Historical (no longer in force)
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.914677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_11a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 11(a): Supplanting Rule
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: We deal first with the question of the application of the supplanting rule (§11(a)) because in this set of circumstances and charges and counter-charges it is most readily resolved.
textreferences: The Engineer will not attempt to supplant another engineer in a particular employment after becoming aware that definite steps have been taken toward the other's employment.
textreferences: We deal first with the question of the application of the supplanting rule (§11(a)) because in this set of circumstances and charges and counter-charges it is most readily resolved.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in resolving the supplanting charge against Firm B
usedincontext: Primary provision analyzed to determine whether Firm B's engineers improperly attempted to supplant Engineer A in particular employment; interpreted to require an existing contract or active negotiation before the supplanting prohibition applies
version: Historical (no longer in force)
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.917953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_12
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 12: Prohibition on Injuring Another Engineer's Reputation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
textreferences: The Engineer will not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer, nor will he indiscriminately criticize another engineer's work.
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in finding both parties in violation for self-interested criticism
usedincontext: Applied to the mutual disparagement and criticism exchanged by Engineer A and Firm B's engineers regarding each other's capability to provide adequate or quality services
version: Historical (no longer in force)
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.918095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_7a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 7(a): Promotional Efforts and Negotiations While Employed
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: A more difficult aspect of the case is the application of §7(a) with regard to the promotional efforts of the four former employees of A.
textreferences: A more difficult aspect of the case is the application of §7(a) with regard to the promotional efforts of the four former employees of A.
textreferences: While in the employ of others, he will not enter promotional efforts or negotiations for work or make arrangements for other employment as a principal or to practice in connection with a specific project for which he has gained particular and specialized knowledge without the consent of all interested parties.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing conduct of the four departing engineers
usedincontext: Governs whether the four former employees of Engineer A violated the code by engaging in promotional efforts or negotiations for work with former clients while still employed by A, and whether specialized project knowledge was improperly exploited
version: Historical (no longer in force)
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.914520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

No Written Non-Compete Agreement Governing Departed Engineers
type: NoWrittenNon-CompeteAgreementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Presumed active throughout — no non-compete is referenced in the case facts
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Four departed engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm
stateclass: No Written Non-Compete Agreement State
subject: Absence of any contractual restriction on the four departed engineers' post-employment competitive activities
terminatedby: Not terminated — no non-compete exists
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm
triggeringevent: Departure of four engineers without any contractual non-compete restriction being invoked or referenced
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.917289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

No Written Non-Compete Post-Departure Solicitation Permissibility Firm B
type: No-Written-Non-CompetePost-DepartureCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: No written non-compete agreement governed the four departed engineers' post-employment competitive activities, making their general solicitation of former clients permissible under the free and open competition framework.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Firm B (four departing engineers)
constraintclass: No-Written-Non-Compete Post-Departure Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: In the absence of any written non-compete agreement or contractual restriction, Firm B's post-departure solicitation of former Firm A clients (where no active contract or negotiation existed) was not ethically prohibited, subject to the constraints against disparagement and specialized knowledge exploitation.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code free and open competition provisions; BER Case 76-5
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
temporalscope: Post-departure competitive solicitation period
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.925630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Non-Principal Employee Departure Mitigating Factor Assessment Firm B
type: Non-PrincipalEmployeeDepartureCompetitiveConductProportionalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The four engineers were key employees but not principals of Firm A; their non-principal status is relevant to calibrating the ethical obligations owed to the former firm regarding goodwill preservation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Four departing engineers (Firm B principals)
constraintclass: Non-Principal Employee Departure Competitive Conduct Proportionality Constraint
constraintstatement: The four departed engineers' status as employees (not principals or partners) of Firm A prior to departure was a relevant mitigating factor in assessing the ethical permissibility of their post-departure competitive conduct, though it did not exempt them from the prohibitions on disparagement and specialized knowledge exploitation.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER precedent on organizational role and ethical calibration
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
temporalscope: Assessment of post-departure competitive conduct
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.925478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Non-Principal Employee Departure Status of Four Engineers
type: Non-PrincipalEmployeeDepartureMitigatingStatusState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Relevant throughout the ethical evaluation of their post-departure competitive conduct
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Four departed engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time
stateclass: Non-Principal Employee Departure Mitigating Status State
subject: The four departed engineers' status as employees (not principals or partners) of Firm A prior to departure
terminatedby: Not applicable — historical status relevant to ethical evaluation
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time
triggeringevent: Departure of four key employees — not partners or co-owners — from Firm A
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.917805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Post-Employment-Client-Solicitation-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: Post-EmploymentClientSolicitationEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE professional ethics framework
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Post-Employment Client Solicitation Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:23.891972+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Post-Employment Client Solicitation Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
textreferences: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's protest and Firm B's conduct
usedincontext: Governs whether Firm B's prompt contact with Firm A's former clients — including those with projects under discussion — constitutes unethical supplanting or permissible competition after departure
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.914973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Pre-Award Prospective Client Status for Projects Under Discussion
type: Pre-AwardProspectiveClientCompetitiveSolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: At the time of Firm B's formation and initial client contacts
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Former clients of Firm A with projects under discussion
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
stateclass: Pre-Award Prospective Client Competitive Solicitation State
subject: Former Firm A clients who had projects under discussion with Firm A but for whom no formal selection or negotiation had occurred
terminatedby: Formal selection or negotiation commencing with one of the competing firms
textreferences: some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
triggeringevent: Firm B's contact with former Firm A clients whose projects were in preliminary discussion stage only
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.916970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Discussion
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Discussion → Former Client Solicitation Exposure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Pre-Departure Internal Planning Non-Violation Four Engineers
type: Pre-DepartureInternalPlanningWithoutOvertActionNon-ViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The four engineers planned their competitive firm formation and post-departure solicitation strategy while still employed, but did not take overt promotional action during the employment period — a distinction relevant to the faithful agent analysis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Four departing engineers
constraintclass: Pre-Departure Internal Planning Without Overt Action Non-Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: The four engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients while still employed by Engineer A, without taking overt promotional action during the employment period, did not constitute a violation of the faithful agent duty or any other ethics code provision.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code faithful agent provisions; BER precedent on at-will departure rights
sourcetext: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
temporalscope: During the period of employment prior to departure
textreferences: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.926394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Pre-Departure Promotional Prohibition Literal Boundary Applied to Firm B Engineers
type: Pre-DeparturePromotionalNegotiationProhibitionWithLiteralBoundary
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Internal planning discussions among the four engineers prior to departure from Firm A
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The four engineers' internal discussions about soliciting former clients of Engineer A while still employed did not constitute a violation because they did not undertake actual promotional efforts or negotiations with those clients while still in Engineer A's employ
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethics code prohibition on pre-departure promotional efforts is read literally: only actual client-facing promotion or negotiation while employed triggers the violation; internal deliberation among prospective co-founders does not
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition With Literal Boundary
sourcetext: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
tensionresolution: The literal reading of the code provision preserves engineer mobility and freedom of thought while still prohibiting actual competitive solicitation during employment
textreferences: As we understand the facts, however, the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A.
textreferences: We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.929944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Prior Client Relationship Leverage by Departed Engineers
type: PriorClientRelationshipLeveragedinPost-DepartureCompetitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the competitive solicitation period following Firm B's formation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: One or more of the four departed engineers
affectedparties: Specific former Firm A clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:30.453400+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ
stateclass: Prior Client Relationship Leveraged in Post-Departure Competition State
subject: One or more of the four departed engineers who had direct personal professional involvement with specific former Firm A clients during their employment
terminatedby: Client selection decisions or ethical determination on permissibility
textreferences: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ
triggeringevent: Firm B's solicitation of former clients with whom individual departed engineers had prior personal professional relationships
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.917650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Professional Reputation Damage Realized
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Professional Solicitation Misleading Language Avoidance Both Parties
type: ProfessionalSolicitationMisleadingLanguageAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both parties made statements to former clients about the other's qualifications that were not grounded in objective professional assessment, violating the requirement that solicitation communications avoid misleading language.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Both Engineer A / Firm A and Firm B
constraintclass: Professional Solicitation Misleading Language Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: Both Engineer A and Firm B were required to ensure that their competitive solicitation communications with former clients avoided misleading, deceptive, and untruthful language — including statements casting doubt on the other party's qualifications that were not grounded in objective professional assessment.
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:44:48.852190+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness, competence, and non-deceptive solicitation
sourcetext: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
temporalscope: Throughout the competitive solicitation period
textreferences: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.926541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Invoked Against Both Parties' Capability Disparagement
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: All adverse capability comments made by either party to former clients of Engineer A
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Peer Critique Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both Engineer A's adverse comments about Firm B's capability and Firm B engineers' adverse comments about Engineer A's capability constituted affronts to the ethics code prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation, prospects, and practice
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique applies to all adverse comments about a competitor's professional capacity made in the context of competitive solicitation, regardless of which party initiated the exchange
invokedby: Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on reputation injury constrains the manner of competition even where competition itself is permissible; free and open competition does not authorize disparagement of competitors
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.930647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Violated by Engineer A Disparagement
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm B's professional reputation and practice
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Mutual Competitive Disparagement Symmetry Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's indication of doubt about Firm B's qualification to provide quality services — made during contacts with former clients — constitutes an attempt to injure Firm B's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through competitive critique where Engineer A directly benefits from Firm B's diminished standing
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's retaliatory disparagement is subject to the same ethical prohibition as Firm B's; the fact that Engineer A learned of Firm B's disparagement does not justify or excuse Engineer A's own disparagement of Firm B
invokedby: Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
tensionresolution: The prohibition applies symmetrically; Engineer A's ethical recourse is to file a formal complaint, not to engage in retaliatory disparagement of Firm B's capabilities
textreferences: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.921689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Violated by Firm B Disparagement
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's professional reputation and practice
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Intellectual Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B's casting of doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services to former clients constitutes an attempt to injure Engineer A's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through competitive critique rendered in circumstances where Firm B directly benefits from Engineer A's diminished standing
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition applies regardless of whether the disparagement is framed as factual observation or opinion; the competitive context and direct benefit to the critic are the key factors establishing the ethical violation
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on competitive reputation injury overrides any claimed duty of candor to clients about competitor capability when the critic stands to benefit; candor obligations are served through honest self-promotion, not competitor denigration
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.921516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Prospective Client Opportunity Lost to Firm A
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Purpose-to-Obstruct Standard Applied Both Parties Section 12 Violation
type: Purpose-to-ObstructSufficiencyPeerCritiqueProhibitionActivationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both Engineer A and Firm B engineers made adverse capability comments to former clients; the Board applied the purpose-to-obstruct standard from Case 75-15 to find both parties in violation of §12
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Ethics adjudicators; Engineer A; Firm B engineers
obligationclass: Purpose-to-Obstruct Sufficiency Peer Critique Prohibition Activation Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board applied the expansive, purposive interpretation of §12's 'maliciously or falsely' language from Case 75-15, finding that the purpose of both Engineer A's and Firm B's adverse comments — clearly to prevent, hinder, or put obstacles in the path of the other — was sufficient to establish a §12 violation without requiring narrow proof of malice or falsity.
sourcetext: In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
temporalscope: During competitive solicitation contacts with former clients
textreferences: In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
textreferences: We commented then that '…we are constrained to avoid a narrow and legalistic interpretation (of those words) and conclude that those words are not a necessary element to find that §12 applies when the purpose…is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of (the other engineer).'
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.931557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Purpose-to-Obstruct Sufficiency Standard Applied to Disparagement Analysis
type: Purpose-to-ObstructSufficiencyforPeerCritiqueProhibitionActivation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Ethics code Section 12 analysis of capability disparagement by both parties
balancingwith: Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied the expansive, purposive interpretation of the ethics code's 'maliciously or falsely' language from Case 75-15, finding that the prohibition on peer reputation injury is activated by obstructive purpose alone — without requiring proof of technical falsity or subjective malice — and applied this standard to find both Engineer A and Firm B in violation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The 'maliciously or falsely' language in the peer reputation injury prohibition is not a narrow technical requirement; the prohibition applies whenever the purpose of the adverse comment is to prevent, hinder, or put obstacles in the path of the other engineer, making obstructive purpose a sufficient trigger
invokedby: Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Purpose-to-Obstruct Sufficiency for Peer Critique Prohibition Activation
sourcetext: we are constrained to avoid a narrow and legalistic interpretation (of those words) and conclude that those words are not a necessary element to find that §12 applies when the purpose…is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of (the other engineer).
tensionresolution: The purposive interpretation expands the scope of the prohibition beyond literal malice or falsity, ensuring that technically accurate but obstructively motivated criticism is still captured by the ethics code
textreferences: In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
textreferences: We commented then that '…we are constrained to avoid a narrow and legalistic interpretation (of those words) and conclude that those words are not a necessary element to find that §12 applies when the purpose…is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of (the other engineer).'
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.930493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Did the four engineers who founded Firm B violate the Code of Ethics by seeking work from former clients of Engineer A?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did the four departing engineers violate any ethical obligation by coordinating their simultaneous resignation as a group, given that the coordinated departure itself—regardless of subsequent solicitation—may have been designed to maximize disruption to Firm A's operational capacity?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Did the four engineers engage in any ethical violation by discussing and planning their post-departure client solicitation strategy while still employed by Engineer A, even if no overt promotional action was taken prior to departure?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: What ethical obligations, if any, did the four departing engineers owe to clients of Firm A with whom they had developed personal professional relationships during their employment, particularly with respect to transparency about the reasons for their departure and the nature of their new firm?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should the Board have examined whether Engineer A's formal ethical complaint against the four engineers was itself ethically compromised by his competitive self-interest, given that the complaint was filed in the context of an active business rivalry rather than a disinterested concern for professional standards?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Did the four engineers comprising Firm B act unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Free and Open Competition—which permits Firm B to solicit former clients of Engineer A—conflict with the Specialized Knowledge Constraint that restricts Firm B from leveraging confidential project knowledge gained during employment, and how should the boundary between permissible competitive solicitation and impermissible knowledge exploitation be drawn when the same engineers who hold specialized knowledge are also the ones conducting the solicitation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Competitive Employment Freedom—affirming the right of the four engineers to depart and form a competing firm—conflict with the Prohibition on Reputation Injury when the very act of soliciting former clients necessarily involves implicit or explicit comparisons that may cast doubt on Engineer A's remaining capacity, and can competitive solicitation ever be fully separated from reputational impact on the incumbent firm?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Honesty Obligation in Competitive Solicitation Communications conflict with the Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Critique Prohibition when an engineer possesses genuinely held, factually grounded concerns about a competitor's capacity—concerns that also happen to serve that engineer's competitive interest—and if so, is there any standard by which objectively true but competitively motivated statements about a rival's qualifications can be made without ethical violation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Mutual Competitive Disparagement Symmetry—applied equally to both Engineer A and Firm B—conflict with the At-Will Employment Symmetry principle when Engineer A's disparagement of Firm B is framed as a defensive reassurance to existing clients rather than an offensive competitive attack, and should the ethical analysis distinguish between proactive disparagement and reactive capacity reassurance even when both produce reputational harm to the other party?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Did Engineer A act unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Firm B to provide quality services?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.504566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did the four departing engineers fulfill their duty of loyalty to Engineer A by internally discussing client solicitation plans before formally resigning, even if no overt promotional action was taken prior to departure?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the duty to avoid injuring a colleague's professional reputation impose a categorical prohibition on capability disparagement during competitive solicitation, or does it permit objectively grounded adverse commentary when the competing firm's qualifications are genuinely in question?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the Board's asymmetric ruling — permitting general client solicitation by Firm B while restricting solicitation tied to specialized project knowledge — produce the best overall outcome for clients, the profession, and competitive market efficiency, compared to a blanket prohibition or blanket permission?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity when he simultaneously protested the departing engineers' conduct on ethical grounds while himself engaging in the symmetrically equivalent misconduct of disparaging Firm B's qualifications to former clients?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the Board have found an ethical violation in Firm B's general client solicitation if a written non-compete agreement had been in place between the four engineers and Engineer A at the time of their departure?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: Would the ethical outcome for Firm B's solicitation of clients with projects under discussion have differed if formal selection or negotiation had already commenced between those clients and Engineer A at the time Firm B made contact?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would Engineer A's disparagement of Firm B's qualifications have been considered ethically permissible if his statements had been objectively verifiable and not motivated by competitive self-interest — for example, if Firm B demonstrably lacked the technical capacity to complete a specific project type?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Would the Board's ruling on specialized knowledge solicitation have extended to all former clients of Engineer A if only one of the four departing engineers — rather than all four collectively — had possessed prior project-specific knowledge about a given client's work?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.505756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.500992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:13:27.501055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Critique Prohibition Invoked Against Both Parties
type: Self-Interest-TaintedAdversePeerCritiqueProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Capability disparagement by Engineer A directed at Firm B
appliedto: Capability disparagement by Firm B engineers directed at Engineer A
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both Engineer A and Firm B engineers made adverse comments about the other's capability motivated by the intent to injure the other's prospects and secure personal competitive benefit, rendering those comments ethically impermissible even though the Board does not entirely foreclose objective adverse commentary in proper circumstances
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Adverse peer commentary is not absolutely prohibited; it may be permissible when objective and disinterested. However, when the motivation is to injure the other's prospects for personal competitive gain, the commentary crosses into ethical violation regardless of technical accuracy
invokedby: Engineer A Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Mutual Disparagement Competing Engineer
principleclass: Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Peer Critique Prohibition
sourcetext: We do not entirely foreclose the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the capacity of another engineer or firm to a prospective client in proper circumstances where the adverse comment is objective and not tinged by self-interest.
tensionresolution: The self-interest motivation test resolves the tension between permissible objective critique and prohibited competitive disparagement; objectivity and absence of self-interest are prerequisites for permissible adverse commentary
textreferences: Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
textreferences: The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
textreferences: We do not entirely foreclose the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the capacity of another engineer or firm to a prospective client in proper circumstances where the adverse comment is objective and not tinged by self-interest.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.930297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation Applied to Firm B Client Contacts
type: SolicitationDeceptionAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Solicitation communications with former clients of Firm A
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B's communications with former clients that cast doubt on Engineer A's capability, if misleading or unsubstantiated, violate the obligation to avoid deceptive or misleading language in the solicitation of professional employment
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The deception avoidance obligation applies not only to self-promotional claims but also to negative characterizations of competitors embedded in solicitation communications; misleading doubt-casting about a competitor's capability is a form of solicitation deception
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation
sourcetext: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
tensionresolution: Solicitation communications must be honest in both self-promotion and competitor characterization; the obligation is violated when competitor capability is misrepresented to induce client defection
textreferences: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.922344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Solicitation Using Specific Project Knowledge
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Solicitation Using Specific Project Knowledge → Prospective Client Opportunity Lost to Firm A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Solicitation of Former Clients Without Active Contracts
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.935573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Specialized Knowledge Constraint Invoked Against Firm B Engineers on Specific Projects
type: SpecializedKnowledgeConstraintonPost-DepartureCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Specific projects on which Firm B engineers gained specialized knowledge while employed by Engineer A
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: One or more of the four engineers who left Engineer A had been involved with former clients of A on specific projects while employed by A; their solicitation of those specific projects after departure raises a violation of the specialized knowledge constraint because consent of all interested parties was not obtained
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:46:59.536015+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The specialized knowledge constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific; it does not prohibit general competition but does require consent when the departing engineer's competitive advantage derives from particular knowledge gained in the prior employment on the very project being solicited
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee Engineer
principleclass: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
sourcetext: We are told that in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time.
tensionresolution: The general freedom to compete post-departure yields to the specialized knowledge constraint on a project-by-project basis; the constraint is not a blanket non-compete but a targeted protection for specific project knowledge
textreferences: It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: We are told that in some instances one or more of the four engineers who left A had been involved with former clients of A while in his employ, and we interpret that statement of fact to apply to specific projects under consideration at the time.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.929794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Specialized Knowledge Constraint Triggered by Prior Project Involvement
type: SpecializedKnowledgeConstraintonPost-DepartureCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Solicitation of former clients with whom departing engineers had project-specific involvement while at Firm A
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: One or more of the four departing engineers had been involved with former clients of Firm A on specific projects while employed there; their solicitation of those same clients for substantially similar work triggers the specialized knowledge constraint requiring prior consent
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Where a departing engineer gained particular and specialized knowledge about a client's project while employed, soliciting that client for the same or similar work without consent of the former employer or client constitutes an ethical violation distinct from general competitive solicitation
invokedby: Firm B Engineers Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee Engineer
principleclass: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
sourcetext: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
tensionresolution: The specialized knowledge constraint narrows but does not eliminate competitive freedom; it applies only to project-specific knowledge, not general professional competence acquired during employment
textreferences: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.921207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period Absent in Firm B Transition
type: VoluntaryNon-SolicitationPeriodasEthicalTransitionPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Immediate solicitation of Firm A former clients upon formation of Firm B
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B's prompt solicitation of Firm A's former clients immediately upon formation, without any voluntary restraint period, is evaluated against the principle that a higher standard of professional conduct would involve refraining from such solicitation for a reasonable transition period
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 168
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 168
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:40.104668+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: While not ethically required absent a contractual no-compete, the immediate solicitation without any transition period falls below the aspirational standard of professional integrity; the ethical minimum is met but the higher standard of conduct is not
invokedby: Four Departing Engineers Firm B Principals
principleclass: Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period as Ethical Transition Practice
sourcetext: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
tensionresolution: The voluntary restraint principle is aspirational rather than mandatory; Firm B's conduct is not a clear ethical violation on this ground alone, but it is noted as falling short of the highest professional standard
textreferences: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
wasattributedto: Case 168 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.921034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

client outreach and disparaging remarks by both parties before ethical complaint filed by Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

disagreement on firm policies before simultaneous resignation of four engineers
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

disparaging remarks by Firm B about Firm A overlaps disparaging remarks by Engineer A about Firm B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

formation of Firm B before Firm B contacting former clients of Firm A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

four engineers' involvement with former clients on specific projects before resignation and formation of Firm B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

internal discussions among four engineers about soliciting clients before resignation from Firm A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

projects under discussion with Firm A during Firm B contacting former clients
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

promotional efforts and negotiations by four engineers after resignation from Firm A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction

simultaneous resignation of four engineers before formation of Firm B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:59:28.936303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 168 Extraction