NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 68-11
It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions... (See Cases Nos. 68-6 and 68-11.)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent supporting the current ruling
Cited alongside Case 68-6 as prior precedent clarifying the purpose and scope of Section 12(a) regarding peer review notification obligations
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 68-6
Cited as prior precedent establishing the purpose of Section 12(a): to give the original engineer the opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions so the reviewing engineer has fuller understanding of the original design
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedent: Engineer Criticism of Prior Engineer's Work in Inspection Report
A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case
BER in analyzing the ethical obligations of Engineer B and Engineer A
Prior BER cases addressing whether an engineer who reviews and critiques a prior engineer's design work in a report for a new owner acts ethically, providing analogical reasoning patterns for this case
BER Ethics Body Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation Section 12(a)
Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to interpret Section 12(a)'s notification requirement purposively — identifying the purpose of the provision as enabling the original engineer to submit comments and explanations — and applying that purposive interpretation to determine that the notification requirement did not apply when the original engineer's connection with the project had been terminated.
Ethics adjudication of whether Engineer B violated Section 12(a) by reviewing Engineer A's work without notification
Purposive interpretation of Section 12(a) to determine that the notification requirement's purpose was not served in the terminated-connection context, and affirming Engineer B's conduct as ethical
it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions
BER Ethics Body Ethics-Law Jurisdiction Boundary Self-Restriction
Ethics-Law Jurisdiction Boundary Self-Restriction Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to restrict its analysis to the ethical question of whether Engineer B acted ethically, explicitly disclaiming any function of advising the state registration board or passing judgment on whether Engineer B's conduct violated state registration law.
Ethics adjudication of Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B for post-occupancy inspection and adverse findings
Explicit statement that 'it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board' and restriction of analysis to the sole ethical question
it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
Restricting our analysis and conclusion to the sole question of whether Engineer B acted ethically
BER Ethics Body Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application
Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to recognize that Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment did not alone constitute the kind of malicious or false injury to professional reputation prohibited by Section 12, because there was no showing of intent to injure Engineer A's professional reputation or practice.
Evaluation of whether Engineer B's adverse inspection findings constituted prohibited injury to Engineer A's professional reputation
Finding that Engineer B's adverse technical conclusions did not satisfy the malicious intent prerequisite for a Section 12 violation
there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
BER Ethics Body Peer Review Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination to Collegial Protection
Peer Review Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination to Collegial Protection Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to recognize that interpreting Section 12(a) so broadly as to prevent independent post-occupancy review would be contrary to client and public interests, and would subject the profession to justifiable criticism for protecting members at the expense of the public.
Interpretation of Section 12's prohibition on injuring professional reputation in the context of legitimate post-occupancy inspection
Explicit articulation that a broad reading of Section 12 would be contrary to client and public interests and would undermine the profession's public service mission
Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally
Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves
BER Ethics Body Peer Review Notification Exemption Terminated-Connection Purposive Interpretation
Peer Review Notification Exemption Terminated-Connection Purposive Interpretation Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to interpret Section 12(a)'s notification requirement purposively, recognizing that the purpose of the notification requirement is to give the original engineer opportunity to explain technical decisions, and that this purpose is not implicated when the original engineer's connection with the project was terminated years earlier.
Determination of whether Engineer B violated Section 12(a) by reviewing Engineer A's work without notification
Affirmation that Engineer B was not required to notify Engineer A because Engineer A's connection with the project had been terminated, grounded in purposive interpretation of Section 12(a)
the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
BER Ethics Body Registration Law Jurisdiction Non-Conflation Engineer B Case
Engineer A filed a complaint against Engineer B with the state registration board; the BER was asked to evaluate the ethics of Engineer B's conduct in conducting the post-occupancy inspection.
Ethics Body Registration Law Jurisdiction Non-Conflation Obligation
The BER was obligated to restrict its analysis to the ethical question of whether Engineer B acted ethically, without passing judgment on whether Engineer B's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law — a question outside the BER's jurisdiction.
At the time of issuing the ethics opinion
BER Ethics Body Registration Law Non-Adjudication Scope Limitation
Engineer A filed a complaint with the state registration board and the BER was asked to evaluate the ethical dimensions; the BER explicitly disclaimed jurisdiction over the registration law question
Ethics Body Jurisdiction Registration Law Non-Adjudication Constraint
The BER was constrained to restrict its analysis exclusively to the ethical question of whether Engineer B acted ethically, and was prohibited from passing judgment on whether Engineer B's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law — that determination being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state registration board.
BER institutional scope and professional ethics body jurisdictional principles
Throughout the BER case analysis and opinion
CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Engagement
CausalLink_Engineer A Files Registration
CausalLink_Engineer B Accepts Inspection
CausalLink_Engineer B Conducts Independen
CausalLink_Engineer B Files Critical Desi
CausalLink_Engineer B Recommends Equipmen
CausalLink_Ethics Board Issues Engineer B
CausalLink_Ethics Board Restricts Analyti
CausalLink_Joint Wiring Inspection Partic
City Wiring Inspector Regulatory Participant
{'role_type': 'Municipal regulatory inspector', 'specialty': 'Electrical wiring inspection', 'authority': 'City'}
Participated in the joint inspection of the facility's wiring alongside Engineer A and Engineer B at the owner's request; the inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
{'type': 'inspection_requested_by', 'target': 'New Facility Owner'}
{'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring
NSPE professional norms and engineering ethics tradition
Professional Norm: Direct Collegial Communication Before Escalating to Regulatory Authorities
Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
BER in evaluating the propriety of Engineer A's decision to file a formal complaint without prior direct engagement with Engineer B
The case raises the question of whether Engineer A, before filing a formal complaint with the registration board, should have first communicated directly with Engineer B to seek clarification or resolution — a standard of collegial professional conduct
Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B was not unethical in accepting the engagement, the structure of Engineer B's report itself provides the strongest evidence of objectivity: by affirmatively clearing Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying deficiencies only in the heating equipment sizing, Engineer B demonstrated that the report was driven by technical findings rather than competitive animus or a wholesale desire to discredit the predecessor engineer. A purely self-serving report aimed at generating remediation work would have been more likely to identify deficiencies across all systems. The balanced character of the report — adverse on one system, favorable on another — satisfies the completeness and objectivity obligations and substantially undermines Engineer A's allegation that the report was non-objective and self-serving.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B was not unethical leaves unaddressed a genuine, if ultimately non-dispositive, tension: Engineer B stood to benefit financially from recommending higher-capacity equipment installation, since such a recommendation would likely generate additional compensated engineering work. While this financial interest does not by itself render the report unethical — particularly given the balanced findings — the Board would have strengthened its reasoning by explicitly acknowledging this conflict and explaining why it did not rise to the level of an ethical violation. The better practice, consistent with the objectivity and full-disclosure norms embedded in the Code, would have been for Engineer B to disclose to the new owner that the recommended remediation work could result in additional compensation for Engineer B or Engineer B's firm, allowing the owner to make an informed decision about whether to seek independent verification of the sizing conclusions. The absence of such disclosure is a nuance the Board did not address and represents a residual ethical imperfection in Engineer B's conduct that falls short of a violation but nonetheless warrants recognition.
The Board's exoneration of Engineer B implicitly resolves, but does not explicitly articulate, the correct purposive interpretation of the peer review notification requirement under Section 12(a): that requirement exists to give the incumbent or predecessor engineer an opportunity to provide relevant technical information before an adverse opinion is finalized, not to give that engineer a veto over independent review or advance warning sufficient to mount a defensive campaign. In this case, the purpose of the notification requirement was substantially satisfied by a different mechanism — Engineer A was informed by the new owner that Engineer B had been retained, and both engineers participated together in the joint wiring inspection. Engineer A therefore had actual knowledge of Engineer B's engagement and a meaningful opportunity to engage with the review process. The fact that Engineer A was not separately notified before the plumbing and heating study does not constitute a violation because Engineer A's connection to the project had been fully terminated years earlier, and the notification purpose had already been served through the joint inspection. This purposive, rather than formalistic, reading of Section 12(a) is the correct one, and the Board's conclusion implicitly depends on it even though the Board did not make this reasoning explicit.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted ethically does not fully reckon with the temporal and contextual fairness question embedded in Engineer A's implicit defense: seven years elapsed between original occupancy and Engineer B's inspection, during which building codes may have evolved, usage patterns of the facility may have changed, and the original design assumptions may have been rendered obsolete by factors entirely outside Engineer A's control at the time of design. A fully objective and complete report — consistent with the highest standards of professional integrity — would have acknowledged the vintage of the original design, identified the codes and standards applicable at the time of original construction, and distinguished between design decisions that were deficient under the standards then prevailing versus those that merely fell short of current standards or were rendered inadequate by subsequent changes in facility use. The Board's exoneration of Engineer B is correct as a matter of ethical compliance, but the ideal report would have included this contextual framing, both as a matter of fairness to Engineer A and as a matter of completeness to the new owner, who deserved to understand whether the identified inadequacies reflected original design error or the natural obsolescence of aging systems.
While the Board correctly focused its analysis on Engineer B's conduct, the more ethically troubling behavior in this case is Engineer A's filing of a registration board complaint. Engineer A was aware that Engineer B had been retained, participated in the joint inspection, and had every opportunity to engage constructively with the review process. Instead, upon receiving an adverse technical finding, Engineer A escalated to a formal regulatory complaint characterizing Engineer B's conduct as 'misconduct' and alleging that Engineer B obtained employment by a 'questionable method' of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge — a characterization that is factually inaccurate given Engineer A's actual knowledge of the engagement. This complaint appears to be an attempt to use the regulatory apparatus as a tool of competitive retaliation rather than a good-faith report of genuine professional misconduct. The Code's prohibition on injuring another engineer's reputation through false or malicious criticism, and its broader norms of collegial fairness, are more clearly implicated by Engineer A's complaint than by anything Engineer B did. The Board's restraint in not explicitly condemning Engineer A's complaint as itself a potential ethical violation reflects appropriate caution, but the analytical record supports the conclusion that Engineer A's conduct warrants scrutiny at least equal to that applied to Engineer B.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B's conduct in this case exemplifies two professional virtues that are often in tension: courage and fairness. Courage is demonstrated by Engineer B's willingness to issue an adverse technical finding against a predecessor engineer's design, knowing that doing so would invite professional conflict and a formal regulatory complaint. Fairness is demonstrated by Engineer B's equal willingness to exonerate Engineer A on the plumbing system, resisting any temptation to leverage the engagement as an opportunity for comprehensive criticism. Together, these qualities reflect the character of an engineer who is genuinely oriented toward honest technical service to the client and the public rather than toward competitive advantage or collegial conflict. By contrast, Engineer A's response — filing a registration board complaint rather than engaging the technical substance of Engineer B's findings — reflects a failure of the virtue of intellectual honesty, substituting procedural attack for substantive rebuttal. The virtue ethics lens thus reinforces the Board's conclusion while also illuminating why Engineer A's conduct, though not formally adjudicated, is the more ethically problematic behavior in this case.
Engineer B's failure to explicitly disclose to the new owner that recommending higher-capacity heating equipment would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for himself represents an unaddressed ethical vulnerability in the Board's analysis. While the Board correctly concluded that Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and rendering the report, the undisclosed financial interest in the remediation recommendation creates a structural conflict of interest that the Code's objectivity provisions would ordinarily require to be surfaced. The fact that Engineer B's report was balanced — exonerating the plumbing design while criticizing the heating equipment sizing — provides circumstantial evidence of objectivity, but does not substitute for affirmative disclosure. A fully ethical report would have acknowledged that Engineer B stood to benefit financially from the upgrade recommendation, allowing the owner to weigh that interest when evaluating the advice. The Board's silence on this point leaves an important gap in the ethical analysis.
Engineer A's complaint to the state registration board, filed after he had already been notified of Engineer B's retention and had participated in the joint wiring inspection, bears the hallmarks of self-interested retaliation rather than a good-faith report of professional misconduct. The Board implicitly recognized this by characterizing the complaint as an improper attempt to use regulatory machinery to suppress legitimate peer review. However, the Board stopped short of explicitly asking whether Engineer A's complaint itself violated the Code of Ethics — specifically the prohibition on injuring a fellow engineer's reputation through unfounded allegations and the obligation not to obstruct legitimate engineering review. The facts strongly suggest that Engineer A's complaint was motivated by competitive self-interest and reputational defensiveness rather than genuine concern about Engineer B's professional conduct, and a complete ethical analysis would have examined whether Engineer A's filing of that complaint was itself an ethical violation warranting separate scrutiny.
The seven-year gap between original occupancy and Engineer B's inspection raises a fairness question the Board did not address: whether Engineer B's adverse findings about heating equipment sizing were evaluated against the codes, standards, and usage conditions prevailing at the time of Engineer A's original design, or against contemporary standards. If building codes or occupancy patterns changed materially in the intervening years, a report that attributed current inadequacies to original design deficiencies — without contextualizing those findings against the standards applicable at the time of design — would fail the completeness and objectivity obligations that the Code imposes on reviewing engineers. Engineer B's report, as described, does not appear to have included this contextual information. While the Board found the report sufficiently objective based on its balanced treatment of plumbing versus heating, a fully rigorous ethical analysis would require that adverse design findings be anchored to the standards and conditions that governed the original engineer's decisions, not to standards that may have evolved in the years since.
The Board did not address whether Engineer B had a collegial obligation to provide Engineer A with an opportunity to review and respond to the draft report before it was submitted to the new owner. Given that the report contained adverse findings about Engineer A's professional work — findings capable of damaging his reputation and future business — the principle of professional dignity and the purpose underlying Section 12(a)'s notification requirement both point toward a pre-submission review opportunity as a best practice, even if not a strict ethical mandate. Such an opportunity would have served multiple interests simultaneously: it would have allowed Engineer A to provide original design calculations and contextual information that might have refined Engineer B's conclusions; it would have demonstrated Engineer B's good faith and reduced the appearance of competitive self-interest; and it would have made Engineer A's subsequent registration board complaint far less credible. While the Board's precedents in Cases 68-6 and 68-11 establish that notification is not required for post-completion reviews of terminated relationships, those cases do not foreclose the conclusion that voluntary pre-submission consultation represents the higher ethical standard.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer B fulfilled a categorical duty of honesty to the new owner by reporting adverse findings about heating equipment sizing without suppressing them to avoid inter-professional conflict. The duty to provide honest, complete, and objective findings to a client who has retained an engineer for an inspection is not contingent on the reputational consequences for the original designer. Engineer B's report, which exonerated the plumbing design while identifying heating deficiencies, reflects the kind of impartial professional judgment that a deontological framework demands: the engineer's obligation runs to the truth of the technical findings and to the client's legitimate interest in accurate information, not to the comfort of a predecessor engineer whose work is under review. The fact that Engineer B's conclusions may have been commercially advantageous to himself does not, under a deontological analysis, negate the duty-fulfilling character of the honest report — though it would have required disclosure of that interest as a separate deontological obligation.
From a consequentialist standpoint, Engineer B's inspection and report produced a net benefit sufficient to justify the reputational harm to Engineer A. The new owner received accurate information about the condition of a facility he had just acquired: the plumbing system was cleared of suspicion, and a genuine heating equipment sizing deficiency was identified and could be remediated before it caused harm to occupants. The public occupants of the housing facility benefited from the identification of inadequate heating capacity. The engineering profession benefited from a demonstration that independent post-occupancy review functions as intended — producing balanced, evidence-based findings rather than reflexive criticism or collegial protection. The reputational harm to Engineer A, while real, was a consequence of an honest technical finding rather than a malicious or fabricated allegation, and consequentialist ethics does not require suppression of true adverse findings to protect the feelings or reputation of the person whose work is found deficient.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's decision to file a registration board complaint against Engineer B — rather than engaging Engineer B directly, offering his original design documentation, or requesting a technical dialogue — reflects a failure of the professional virtues of intellectual honesty, collegial fairness, and proportionality. A virtuous engineer, upon learning that a peer's report had found deficiencies in his work, would first examine whether the findings had technical merit, then seek to provide context that might explain or rebut them, and only resort to formal complaint mechanisms if there were genuine evidence of bad faith or professional misconduct. Engineer A's complaint alleged that Engineer B obtained employment by criticizing him without his knowledge — a characterization that misrepresents the nature of independent post-occupancy inspection and suggests that Engineer A's primary motivation was self-protection rather than the vindication of professional standards. This conduct falls short of the character expected of a professional engineer.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B exhibited the professional virtues of courage and integrity by issuing an adverse technical finding against a predecessor engineer's design while simultaneously exonerating that engineer on the plumbing system. The balanced character of the report — adverse on heating, favorable on plumbing — is the strongest available evidence that Engineer B was exercising honest professional judgment rather than pursuing a competitive agenda. A self-serving engineer motivated primarily by the prospect of remediation work would have had every incentive to find deficiencies across all systems. The fact that Engineer B cleared the plumbing design demonstrates a willingness to subordinate financial self-interest to technical accuracy, which is precisely the virtue the profession requires of reviewing engineers. This balanced finding also retroactively undermines Engineer A's allegation that the report was non-objective and self-serving.
If Engineer B had notified Engineer A before conducting the independent plumbing and heating study — beyond the joint wiring inspection already performed — such notification would likely have satisfied any residual collegial obligation under Section 12(a) and would not have materially changed the ethical assessment of Engineer B's conduct, but it might have materially improved the technical quality of the report. Notification would have given Engineer A the opportunity to share original design calculations, specifications, and the usage assumptions that governed his original sizing decisions. This information could have either confirmed Engineer B's adverse findings or provided context that modified them. The ethical assessment of Engineer B's conduct would remain favorable either way, because the obligation under Section 12(a) is to consult available evidence before rendering an adverse opinion — and Engineer B satisfied that obligation through the joint wiring inspection. However, proactive notification for the plumbing and heating study would have represented a higher standard of collegial practice and would have made the subsequent registration board complaint essentially untenable.
If Engineer B had declined the inspection engagement entirely upon learning that the new owner's dissatisfaction was directed at a specific predecessor engineer, such a refusal would have improperly subordinated the owner's and public's legitimate interest in independent engineering review to a form of collegial protectionism that the Code does not sanction. The new owner had a legitimate need for an objective assessment of a facility he had just acquired. The public occupants of the housing facility had a legitimate interest in having heating equipment adequacy independently verified. Declining the engagement to avoid the appearance of criticizing a predecessor engineer would have elevated inter-professional comfort over client service and public safety — an inversion of the engineer's primary obligations. The ethical framework does not require engineers to refuse assignments merely because honest performance of those assignments may result in adverse findings about a predecessor's work.
If Engineer B's report had failed to note that the plumbing design was adequate — reporting only the heating equipment sizing deficiency — that selective reporting would have constituted a violation of the completeness and objectivity obligations and would have substantially validated Engineer A's complaint of a self-serving, non-objective report. A report that identified only deficiencies while omitting favorable findings would have been structurally biased toward generating remediation work for Engineer B, regardless of whether that bias was intentional. The completeness principle requires that a reviewing engineer's report reflect the full scope of findings, including those favorable to the original designer. Engineer B's actual report, which exonerated the plumbing design, is therefore not merely a virtue — it is an ethical requirement. The Board's implicit reliance on the balanced character of the report as evidence of objectivity is well-founded, and the counterfactual of a one-sided report illustrates precisely why completeness is a non-negotiable obligation rather than a discretionary best practice.
If Engineer A had proactively offered to share original design documentation and calculations with Engineer B before the report was finalized, such cooperation would likely have improved the technical quality of the report, reduced the probability of the registration board complaint, and exemplified the collegial professional conduct the Code envisions. Original design documentation would have allowed Engineer B to evaluate the heating equipment sizing against the loads, codes, and usage assumptions that governed Engineer A's original decisions — potentially contextualizing or moderating the adverse findings. Even if the adverse findings were confirmed, Engineer A's proactive cooperation would have demonstrated intellectual honesty and professional confidence in his original work, making a subsequent complaint of non-objectivity far less credible. The counterfactual highlights a missed opportunity: the Code's collegial obligations run in both directions, and Engineer A's decision to respond to Engineer B's engagement with a registration board complaint rather than professional cooperation represents a failure of the collaborative spirit the Code envisions.
The central tension in this case — between Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility and Professional Dignity — was resolved decisively in favor of the former, but the resolution was not absolute. The Board recognized that once Engineer A's professional connection to the project had ended and he had been fully compensated, his claim to advance notice before adverse findings were reported to the new owner could not override the owner's legitimate interest in independent engineering review. Professional Dignity, as invoked by Engineer A, was reframed not as a substantive entitlement to pre-report notification but as a procedural interest already substantially satisfied by the joint wiring inspection, which gave Engineer A actual knowledge that Engineer B had been retained. The case teaches that Professional Dignity does not extend to a veto — or even a right of prior review — over a successor engineer's technical conclusions about completed work. The principle of Independent Engineering Review as a Client and Public Interest Instrument was treated as the dominant value, subordinating collegial courtesy norms when the two came into conflict.
The tension between Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer B In Balanced Report and Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B Report reveals a deeper principle about what objectivity actually requires. Engineer A argued that objectivity demanded Engineer B include contextual information — the age of the design, codes applicable at the time of original construction, and changed usage conditions — before rendering adverse conclusions about equipment sizing. The Board implicitly resolved this tension by treating Engineer B's balanced findings (exonerating the plumbing design while criticizing the heating equipment sizing) as sufficient evidence of objectivity, without requiring the broader contextual framing Engineer A demanded. This resolution teaches that objectivity in post-occupancy engineering review is primarily measured by the internal consistency and evidentiary grounding of the report, not by the degree to which the reviewing engineer contextualizes or mitigates adverse findings in deference to the original designer's circumstances. However, this resolution leaves open a legitimate residual concern: a truly complete and objective report arguably should acknowledge whether identified deficiencies reflect conditions that were code-compliant at the time of original construction, since that distinction is material to the owner's understanding of whether Engineer A was negligent or merely working within then-prevailing standards.
The most underexamined principle tension in this case is between Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique and the Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility principle, particularly because Engineer B stood to benefit financially from recommending higher-capacity equipment installation. The Board resolved this tension by treating the absence of demonstrated malicious intent as dispositive: because Engineer B's adverse findings were technically grounded and his report was balanced (clearing the plumbing design), the competitive self-interest concern was insufficient to transform legitimate peer review into an improper competitive method. This resolution establishes an important prioritization rule — financial self-interest in remediation work does not automatically corrupt the objectivity of an adverse engineering finding, provided the finding is evidence-based and the report is internally balanced. However, the case also implicitly teaches that this resolution carries a disclosure corollary that the Board did not explicitly articulate: the principle of Objectivity would be more robustly satisfied if reviewing engineers who stand to benefit from remediation recommendations they make were to disclose that potential interest to the client, not because the interest necessarily compromises the finding, but because transparency about it reinforces rather than undermines the credibility of the adverse conclusion. The Board's silence on this disclosure dimension represents a gap in the principle synthesis that future cases should address.
Should Engineer B accept the post-occupancy inspection engagement and issue an honest technical report including adverse findings about Engineer A's original design, or decline the engagement to avoid the appearance of competitive criticism of a predecessor engineer?
Engineer B, retained by the new owner to conduct a post-occupancy inspection of a facility originally designed by Engineer A, must decide whether to accept the engagement and issue an honest technical report — including adverse findings about Engineer A's heating equipment sizing — given that Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and paid years earlier, and the new owner has a legitimate need for independent engineering assessment.
Accept the post-occupancy inspection, participate in the joint wiring inspection, conduct an independent plumbing and heating study, and issue a complete and honest report to the new owner — including adverse findings about heating equipment sizing — without suppressing conclusions out of collegial deference to Engineer A, whose project connection has been fully terminated.
Accept the inspection engagement but frame all findings as neutral observations and recommendations for the owner's consideration rather than as adverse conclusions about Engineer A's design decisions, avoiding any characterization of the original equipment sizing as a 'design inadequacy' while still identifying the current performance shortfall.
Decline the inspection engagement upon learning that the new owner's dissatisfaction is directed at a specific predecessor engineer, on the ground that honest performance of the assignment would necessarily involve adverse findings about Engineer A's professional work and could expose Engineer B to a complaint of competitive self-interest.
Should Engineer B issue a complete and balanced report that affirmatively clears Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying the heating equipment sizing deficiency, and disclose to the new owner that the recommended equipment upgrade could generate additional compensated work for Engineer B — or is it sufficient to report only the adverse heating finding without affirmative disclosure of the potential financial interest?
Engineer B, having identified heating equipment sizing inadequacies in Engineer A's original design, must decide how to structure the report's findings — specifically whether to include the favorable plumbing finding alongside the adverse heating finding, and whether to disclose to the new owner that recommending higher-capacity equipment installation would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for Engineer B — in order to satisfy the completeness, objectivity, and conflict-of-interest disclosure obligations of the Code.
Issue a complete and balanced report that affirmatively clears Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying the heating equipment sizing deficiency, and separately disclose to the new owner that the recommended equipment upgrade could generate additional compensated engineering work for Engineer B, allowing the owner to make an informed decision about whether to seek independent verification of the sizing conclusions.
Issue a complete and balanced report that affirmatively clears Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying the heating equipment sizing deficiency, relying on the report's internal balance as sufficient evidence of objectivity without separately disclosing the potential financial interest in the remediation recommendation — on the ground that such interest is an ordinary and foreseeable consequence of any inspection engineer's role.
Issue a report identifying only the heating equipment sizing deficiency without affirmatively clearing the plumbing design, on the ground that the inspection scope was limited to identifying deficiencies rather than rendering a comprehensive adequacy assessment across all systems.
Should Engineer A respond to Engineer B's adverse technical report by filing a formal registration board complaint alleging that Engineer B acted improperly, or by engaging Engineer B directly with original design documentation and technical rebuttal?
Engineer A, upon receiving Engineer B's adverse technical report identifying heating equipment sizing inadequacies in his original design, must decide how to respond — specifically whether to file a formal registration board complaint characterizing Engineer B's conduct as misconduct, or to engage the technical substance of the findings through professional dialogue and cooperation, given that Engineer A had actual prior knowledge of Engineer B's retention and participated in the joint wiring inspection.
File a formal complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B acted improperly by criticizing Engineer A's design without his knowledge and by obtaining employment through a questionable competitive method, seeking regulatory adjudication of whether Engineer B's conduct violated the Code of Ethics.
Respond to Engineer B's adverse report by proactively sharing original design calculations, specifications, and the usage assumptions that governed the original equipment sizing decisions, inviting Engineer B to reconsider the adverse findings in light of the codes and conditions prevailing at the time of original construction — and, if the findings are confirmed, accepting the technical disagreement as a legitimate difference of professional opinion.
Upon learning of Engineer B's adverse heating findings but before the report is finalized, formally request through the new owner that Engineer B convene a joint technical review session at which Engineer A can present original design documentation and respond to the preliminary conclusions — preserving Engineer A's professional dignity while allowing Engineer B to incorporate contextual information into the final report.
Should Engineer A respond to Engineer B's adverse technical report by filing a registration board complaint, by engaging Engineer B directly with original design evidence, or by accepting the finding as a legitimate peer review outcome?
Engineer A, having been notified of Engineer B's retention and having participated in the joint wiring inspection, must decide how to respond to Engineer B's adverse report on heating equipment sizing: file a formal registration board complaint alleging misconduct, engage Engineer B directly with original design documentation, or accept the adverse finding as a legitimate technical disagreement.
File a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B obtained employment through misconduct by criticizing Engineer A's work without his knowledge, seeking regulatory adjudication of Engineer B's conduct.
Proactively share original design calculations, specifications, and the usage assumptions governing the original equipment sizing with Engineer B, inviting technical dialogue and offering context that might refine or rebut the adverse heating findings before any formal escalation.
Treat Engineer B's adverse finding on heating equipment sizing as a legitimate technical disagreement among qualified engineers, refraining from formal complaint and instead relying on the owner's own judgment about whether to act on the recommendation.
Should Engineer B submit the adverse inspection report to the new owner as completed, first afford Engineer A a pre-submission opportunity to review and respond to the draft findings, or disclose to the owner his potential financial interest in the recommended equipment upgrade before submitting?
Engineer B, having been retained by the new owner to conduct a post-occupancy inspection and having identified heating equipment sizing inadequacies in Engineer A's original design, must decide whether to submit the adverse report to the owner as completed, first provide Engineer A an opportunity to review and respond to the draft findings, or disclose to the owner his financial interest in the remediation work the report recommends.
Submit the adverse inspection report to the new owner as completed, relying on the balanced character of the findings — exonerating the plumbing design while identifying only the heating equipment sizing deficiency — as sufficient evidence of objectivity, without separate pre-submission notice to Engineer A or disclosure of the financial interest in the remediation recommendation.
Before submitting the report to the owner, provide Engineer A with a copy of the draft adverse findings on heating equipment sizing and invite him to share original design calculations, applicable codes at time of construction, and usage assumptions — incorporating any relevant context into the final report before submission.
Before submitting the report, disclose to the new owner that the recommended equipment upgrade would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for Engineer B or Engineer B's firm, allowing the owner to weigh that interest when evaluating the adverse finding and to seek independent verification of the sizing conclusions if desired.
Should Engineer B frame the adverse heating equipment sizing finding by contextualizing it against the codes and conditions prevailing at the time of Engineer A's original design, report the deficiency against current standards without temporal framing, or limit the report to current system condition findings without attributing design responsibility to Engineer A?
Engineer B, having accepted the post-occupancy inspection engagement from the new owner, must decide how to frame the adverse heating equipment sizing finding in the report: evaluate the original design against standards and conditions prevailing at the time of original construction, evaluate it against current standards without temporal contextualization, or decline to render a comparative judgment about the original design and limit the report to current condition findings only.
Report the heating equipment sizing inadequacy as a current deficiency requiring remediation, relying on the balanced character of the findings — exonerating the plumbing design — as sufficient evidence of objectivity, without separately contextualizing the adverse finding against the codes and conditions that governed Engineer A's original design decisions.
Anchor the adverse heating equipment sizing finding to the codes, load assumptions, and usage conditions prevailing at the time of Engineer A's original design, explicitly distinguishing between deficiencies that were present at original construction and any inadequacies attributable to subsequent code evolution or changed facility use patterns.
Limit the report to a description of the current condition of the heating system and the owner's remediation options, refraining from attributing the sizing inadequacy to Engineer A's original design decisions and instead framing the finding as a present-state assessment without retrospective design criticism.
Should Engineer A respond to Engineer B's adverse technical report by filing a registration board complaint alleging misconduct, or by engaging Engineer B directly through collegial professional channels?
Engineer A Files Registration Board Complaint Against Engineer B for Technically Compliant Conduct After Receiving Adverse Peer Review Findings
File a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B obtained employment through a questionable method by criticizing Engineer A's design and that the report was non-objective and self-serving, invoking regulatory oversight as the primary response to the adverse findings.
Respond to Engineer B's adverse findings by proactively sharing original design calculations, applicable codes at the time of construction, and usage assumptions with Engineer B, seeking a collegial technical dialogue to either rebut or contextualize the heating equipment sizing conclusions before escalating to any formal mechanism.
Rather than filing a regulatory complaint or engaging Engineer B directly, request that the new owner commission a neutral third-party engineer to evaluate the heating equipment sizing findings against the codes and load conditions prevailing at the time of original construction, allowing the technical dispute to be resolved on its merits without inter-professional conflict.
Design Inadequacy in Equipment Sizing Identified
Design deficiency formally identified; Engineer A's mechanical engineering work found inadequate in specific area; remediation becomes necessary; professional conflict between engineers becomes likely
During independent plumbing and heating study, Year 7
Engineer B's investigation identified specific design inadequacies in the sizing of hot water and heating equipment, finding that the installed equipment was insufficient to meet the facility's needs.
BER Interpretive Guidance on Section 12(a) – Purpose of Notification Requirement
Engineer Notification Right in Review Contexts
the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in framing the purpose of peer review notification for future guidance
The Board articulates the authoritative interpretation that Section 12(a)'s notification requirement exists to allow the original engineer to explain technical decisions to the reviewer, not to prevent independent review altogether; this interpretation bridges the abstract code provision to the concrete facts of Engineer B's facility inspection
Mechanical and Electrical Engineer, Subconsultant
Long-term professional liability exposure for design decisions made during the project
Acceptance of work within area of professional competence
Contractual obligation to prime engineer
Duty to serve client interests through competent design
Provide professional mechanical and electrical engineering services and fulfill contractual obligations to the prime engineer and ultimately the project owner
Equipment sizing for hot water and heating systems
Project inception, approximately 11+ years before the complaint
Engineer A accepted retention by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project, committing to deliver compliant designs for plumbing, heating, and electrical systems.
Engineer A Accepts Engagement → Design Inadequacy in Equipment Sizing Identified
Engineer A accepted retention by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services, creating the original design work that Engineer B's later investigation identified as containing specific design inadequacies in the sizing of hot water and heating equipment
Without Engineer A's original acceptance and execution of the mechanical engineering engagement, there would be no original design to critique; without the design inadequacy in the original work, Engineer B's investigation would not have identified sizing deficiencies
Engineer A's execution of design work including equipment sizing decisions
Engineer A's original acceptance of the mechanical and electrical engineering engagement
Engineer B's independent investigation methodology capable of identifying sizing deficiencies
Seven-year gap between original design and subsequent independent review
Original design acceptance + execution of equipment sizing + independent review trigger = identification of design inadequacy
The combination of Engineer A performing the original sizing work and Engineer B conducting a rigorous independent study was sufficient to surface the inadequacy
Engineer A Baseless Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Non-Recognition Failure
Baseless Peer Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Recognition and Abstention Capability
Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that the registration board complaint against Engineer B was motivated by reputational self-protection rather than genuine professional misconduct, resulting in an improper complaint filing that constituted a violation of collegial non-retaliation obligations.
Engineer A filed the complaint after Engineer B's report found inadequacies in Engineer A's original heating equipment sizing — a finding adverse to Engineer A's professional reputation.
Filing a registration board complaint alleging Engineer B acted improperly and was self-serving, when Engineer B had conducted a legitimate post-occupancy inspection and issued an honest, balanced report.
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
Engineer A Baseless Regulatory Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Recognition Failure
Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that the registration board complaint against Engineer B was motivated primarily by reputational self-protection rather than genuine professional misconduct, and consequently filed an improper complaint against Engineer B for conduct that was ethically permissible.
Engineer A's response to Engineer B's adverse inspection findings on Engineer A's original MEP designs
Filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B after Engineer B's honest post-occupancy inspection found deficiencies in Engineer A's original designs
Engineer A filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B had violated the state registration law
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B when Engineer B's conduct was ethically permissible
Engineer A Competitive Motivation Disclosure in Registration Board Complaint
Engineer A's complaint was explicitly motivated by reputational self-protection, as evidenced by the allegation that Engineer B's actions were 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.'
Competitive Motivation Disclosure in Peer Misconduct Reporting Constraint
Engineer A was required to disclose to the registration board that his complaint against Engineer B was motivated at least in part by self-interest in protecting his own professional reputation and practice from the adverse findings in Engineer B's report, rather than presenting the complaint as a purely altruistic professional duty discharge.
NSPE Code provisions on honest professional conduct
At the time of filing the registration board complaint
Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
Engineer A Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Non-Transparency
Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Self-Application Capability
Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that the complaint against Engineer B was motivated by reputational self-interest rather than professional duty, and failed to assess whether the complaint was grounded in genuine misconduct rather than competitive self-protection.
The complaint explicitly referenced Engineer A's reputational interests, indicating self-serving rather than public-interest motivation.
Filing a complaint explicitly citing harm to Engineer A's 'dignity and reputation' as the basis for the misconduct allegation, revealing self-interested rather than duty-based motivation.
Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Through Registration Board Complaint Prohibition
Engineer A's complaint explicitly sought to have Engineer B found guilty of misconduct and alleged Engineer B's actions were 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A,' revealing the reputational injury motivation.
Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from attempting to injure Engineer B's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through a registration board complaint alleging 'misconduct' when Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection — did not constitute misconduct, and when Engineer A's motivation was self-protective rather than grounded in genuine public interest.
At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
Engineer A Employment-by-Criticism Allegation Non-Cognizability Non-Recognition Failure
Employment-by-Criticism Improper-Method Allegation Non-Cognizability Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that the allegation that Engineer B 'obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge' does not constitute cognizable professional misconduct, because Engineer B was legitimately retained by the new owner based on professional need.
Engineer A's complaint conflated the adverse content of Engineer B's findings with an allegedly improper method of obtaining the engagement.
Requesting the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of misconduct for obtaining employment through criticism, when the engagement was properly client-initiated.
Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
Engineer A Employment-by-Criticism Improper-Method Allegation Non-Cognizability Recognition Failure
Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that an allegation that Engineer B obtained employment by criticizing Engineer A's work does not constitute cognizable professional misconduct, because legitimate post-occupancy inspection services are properly obtained through client retention based on professional need.
Engineer A's complaint to the state registration board against Engineer B
Filing a complaint alleging that Engineer B obtained employment through improper criticism of Engineer A's work, when in fact Engineer B was legitimately retained by the new owner
Engineer A filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B had violated the state registration law and had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A
Engineer A Epistemic Verification Before Registration Board Complaint Filing
Engineer A filed a complaint alleging misconduct without adequate factual basis, as Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection — was ethically permissible.
Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint
Engineer A was required to independently verify the factual basis for alleging Engineer B committed 'misconduct' — including confirming that Engineer B's conduct actually violated applicable ethics provisions — before filing a formal complaint with the state engineering registration board.
NSPE Code Section III.7; State Engineering Registration Board Rules
Prior to filing the registration board complaint
Engineer A Files Registration Board Complaint
Complaint could be perceived as retaliatory and self-protective rather than genuinely motivated by public interest in ethical enforcement
Complaint could be seen as attempting to use the registration board to suppress legitimate independent engineering review
Complaint could draw further attention to the alleged design inadequacies in Engineer A's original work
Engineer's right to defend professional reputation through legitimate channels
Section 12, right to present information to proper authority if another engineer is believed guilty of unethical or illegal practice
Use of proper channels for ethical complaints
Seek a formal finding of misconduct against Engineer B to protect Engineer A's professional reputation and deter other engineers from obtaining work through criticism of prior designers
Ability to articulate specific ethical allegations
Understanding of registration board complaint procedures
Following Engineer B's report, approximately seven years after original occupancy
Possible misuse of the complaint mechanism if the complaint was primarily self-protective rather than genuinely motivated by concern for ethical violations
Risk of violating spirit of Section 12 by attempting to use professional machinery to suppress legitimate independent engineering review that serves the public interest
Engineer A made a deliberate decision to file a formal complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B acted improperly, produced a non-objective report, and obtained employment through questionable criticism of Engineer A without his knowledge.
Financial relationship between Engineer A and original owner formally closed; Engineer A's active engagement ends; however, professional responsibility for design quality is not extinguished by payment
At or shortly after project completion (Year 0)
Engineer A received full compensation for the mechanical and electrical engineering services rendered on the housing project, formally closing the financial relationship with the original owner.
Engineer A Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique of Engineer B Prohibition
Engineer A's complaint alleged Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, but Engineer A lacked full knowledge of the evidence and methodology Engineer B employed in reaching the heating equipment sizing conclusion.
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from alleging Engineer B's report was non-objective and incomplete without full knowledge of the circumstances, evidence, and professional judgment factors that informed Engineer B's conclusions about heating equipment sizing adequacy.
NSPE Code Section III.7; NSPE Code Section II.3
Engineer A Original Engineer Awareness Review Engagement Notification Purpose Satisfaction
Engineer A knew Engineer B had been retained; BER noted this as a relevant fact in its analysis that Engineer A's connection had been terminated and Engineer A had knowledge of the review
Original Engineer Awareness of Review Notification Satisfaction Constraint
Engineer B's obligation to notify Engineer A under Section 12(a) was further constrained — and effectively satisfied — by the fact that Engineer A already had actual knowledge that Engineer B had been retained to conduct the inspection and that the review would necessarily entail evaluation of the original designs, meaning the notification purpose was met even absent formal written notice.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12(a); BER analysis
it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
At the time Engineer B commenced the post-occupancy inspection
Engineer A Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Non-Recognition
Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize the obligation to cooperate with Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection — instead filing a retaliatory complaint that sought to obstruct the review process and penalize Engineer B for conducting it.
Engineer A's response to Engineer B's inspection was to file a complaint rather than engage constructively with the findings.
Filing a registration board complaint against Engineer B for conducting a legitimate post-occupancy inspection, rather than cooperating with or accepting the findings of the review.
Engineer A Section 12 Complaint Malicious Intent Non-Shown Non-Violation Recognition
Engineer A alleged Engineer B violated Section 12 by criticizing the original design; BER found no showing of malicious intent and held that adverse technical conclusions alone cannot constitute a Section 12 violation
Adverse Technical Conclusion Malicious Intent Non-Presumption Constraint
Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B was constrained by the requirement that a Section 12 violation requires a showing of malicious or false intent to injure professional reputation — a showing that was absent on the facts, because Engineer B's adverse technical conclusions about heating equipment sizing alone could not constitute the barred conduct without evidence of malicious intent.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12; BER analysis
At the time of complaint filing and BER adjudication
Engineer A Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Engineer B Prohibition
Engineer A filed a complaint alleging Engineer B committed 'misconduct' by obtaining employment through criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge; the Board found Engineer A's complaint was itself ethically problematic as it sought to suppress legitimate peer review.
Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Technically Compliant Peer Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B for conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing an honest technical report — that was ethically permissible, when Engineer A's motivation was to protect his own professional reputation rather than to vindicate a genuine ethics violation.
NSPE Code Sections III.7, III.8; BER Cases 68-6, 68-11
Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
Engineer A Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Technically Compliant Engineer B Prohibition
Engineer A filed a complaint with the state registration board against Engineer B after Engineer B's report identified inadequacies in Engineer A's original heating equipment sizing; BER found Engineer B acted ethically
Engineer A was constrained from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B when Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing an honest technical report — was ethically and professionally permissible, and when Engineer A's primary motivation was to protect professional reputation and suppress criticism of prior design work rather than to vindicate a genuine public interest or ethics violation.
Engineer A fully paid meets Engineer A's connection with project terminated
Engineer A was fully paid for his services... the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier.
Engineer A's connection with project terminated
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
Engineer A retained for project before project completion and occupancy
Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project. The project was completed and occupied four years later.
Engineer A's connection with project terminated before ownership change
It is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier [than the ownership change and Engineer B's review].
Engineer B Accepts Inspection Engagement
Potential professional conflict with Engineer A if design deficiencies were identified
Risk of being perceived as obtaining work through criticism of another engineer
Duty to serve client's legitimate engineering needs
Obligation to accept work within area of competence
Public safety obligation through independent review
Provide the new owner with an objective, independent engineering assessment of the facility's reported problems in order to protect the client's interests and public safety
Potential procedural obligation under Section 12(a) to notify Engineer A before reviewing his work, though mitigated by the fact that Engineer A's connection to the project had been terminated
Ability to review mechanical and electrical designs
Approximately seven years after original occupancy, following ownership change
Engineer B made a deliberate professional decision to accept the new owner's retention to conduct an engineering inspection of the facility, knowing this would involve reviewing the original engineering work of another engineer.
Engineer B Adverse Opinion Grounded in Available Evidence Including Joint Inspection
The joint wiring inspection revealed no defects; Engineer B's report on plumbing and heating was required to be grounded in similarly thorough evidence consultation before adverse conclusions were drawn.
Adverse Opinion Available Evidence Consultation Constraint
Engineer B was required to consult all reasonably available evidence — including the results of the joint wiring inspection conducted with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical opinions about Engineer A's original design work.
NSPE Code Section II.3; NSPE Code Section III.2
At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
Prior to and during preparation of the post-occupancy inspection report
Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
Engineer B Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Joint Wiring Inspection
Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Capability
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to consult all available evidence — including participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before forming and issuing adverse technical opinions about the original MEP design.
Engineer B participated in the joint wiring inspection before conducting further study and issuing the report concluding heating equipment sizing was inadequate.
Participation in the joint wiring inspection organized by the new owner, followed by a further study of plumbing and heating systems before filing the inspection report.
Engineer B Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report
Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report Completeness Capability
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to produce a balanced and complete inspection report that included both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (heating equipment sizing inadequacy), fulfilling the obligation of objective and complete reporting.
Engineer B's report addressed multiple systems and reported findings in both directions, demonstrating objectivity rather than selective adverse reporting.
Filing a report that explicitly noted no problem with the plumbing system design while also concluding there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of hot water and heating equipment.
The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
Engineer B Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report Completeness
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to produce a balanced inspection report that included both adverse findings (inadequate hot water and heating equipment sizing) and favorable findings (no plumbing design problem), recognizing that selective reporting of only adverse findings would constitute a material omission.
Post-occupancy inspection report delivered to new facility owner
Reporting both that there were design inadequacies in heating equipment sizing and that there was no plumbing design problem, providing a complete and balanced assessment
Engineer B was obligated to be objective and complete in the inspection report, including both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (inadequate hot water and heating equipment sizing)
Engineer B Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Assessment Heating Recommendation
The potential self-interest in recommending higher-capacity equipment (which would generate additional work for Engineer B) required assessment of whether the critique was improperly motivated by competitive self-interest.
Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer B was constrained from offering critical opinions about Engineer A's original heating equipment sizing when Engineer B stood to benefit commercially from the recommended remediation; however, the constraint was not violated because Engineer B's criticism was grounded in a legitimate technical assessment rather than competitive procurement context.
Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
During preparation of the post-occupancy inspection report and recommendation
Engineer B Conducts Independent Plumbing and Heating Study
Findings critical of Engineer A's original design decisions were foreseeable if design inadequacies existed
Risk of being perceived as self-serving by recommending equipment upgrades that could generate additional work
Duty of objectivity and completeness in professional reporting
Duty to provide thorough engineering assessment to client
Obligation to investigate reported problems completely
Public safety duty to identify design inadequacies
Provide the owner with a thorough and objective engineering assessment of the plumbing and heating systems to identify and resolve reported problems
Possible argument that Engineer B should have notified Engineer A before conducting the review, though mitigated by Engineer A's terminated connection to the project
Following the joint wiring inspection, approximately seven years after original occupancy
Engineer B made a deliberate professional decision to conduct a further independent study of the plumbing and heating systems after the owner raised complaints about those systems, going beyond the initial wiring inspection scope.
Engineer B Conducts Independent Plumbing and Heating Study → Engineer B Files Critical Design Report
Engineer B made a deliberate professional decision to conduct a further independent study of the plumbing and heating systems, which directly produced the evidentiary basis for Engineer B's subsequent deliberate professional decision to file a written report with the owner concluding that design inadequacies existed
Without Engineer B's independent study, no critical report would have been filed; alternatively, if no design inadequacies existed, the study would not have produced a critical report (as evidenced by the plumbing design finding of no inadequacies)
Actual existence of design inadequacies in equipment sizing detectable through investigation
Documented plumbing and heating complaints providing the investigative mandate
Engineer B's acceptance of the independent engagement creating professional obligation to investigate
Engineer B's independent professional judgment and methodology applied to the systems
Independent engagement + documented complaints + professional investigation methodology + actual design deficiencies = critical design report
The combination of Engineer B's professional mandate, investigative rigor, and the actual presence of sizing deficiencies was sufficient to produce the critical report
Recommendation for higher capacity equipment could be perceived as self-serving if Engineer B stood to benefit from the upgrade work
Report would directly reflect on Engineer A's original design competence and could damage his professional reputation
Duty to provide actionable recommendations for remediation
Duty to provide honest and complete findings to the client
Obligation to document engineering conclusions professionally
Public safety duty to identify and report design inadequacies
Provide the owner with an honest, documented engineering assessment identifying specific design inadequacies and actionable recommendations to resolve the facility's heating and hot water problems
Ability to distinguish design from installation issues
Engineering analysis and judgment on equipment sizing
Objective assessment of original design decisions
Technical writing and report preparation
Following the independent plumbing and heating study, approximately seven years after original occupancy
Possible obligation under Section 12 if report contained information that was not fully objective or complete, as alleged by Engineer A
Spirit of Section 12(a). Engineer B did not notify Engineer A before filing the report, denying Engineer A the opportunity to provide context for his original design decisions
Engineer B made a deliberate professional decision to file a written report with the owner concluding there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of hot water and heating equipment, while finding no problem with the plumbing system design.
Engineer B Files Critical Design Report → Engineer A Files Registration Board Complaint
Engineer B's deliberate professional decision to file a written report with the owner concluding that design inadequacies existed directly precipitated Engineer A's deliberate decision to file a formal complaint with the state engineering registration board
Without Engineer B's critical report, Engineer A would have had no basis or motivation to file an ethics complaint; the complaint was a direct defensive response to the reputational threat posed by Engineer B's findings
Engineer A's awareness of the critical report and its professional implications
Engineer A's belief that Engineer B's conduct violated professional ethics standards
Engineer B's filing of a written report critical of Engineer A's original design work
Existence of a state engineering registration board with jurisdiction over the complaint
Critical report filing + Engineer A's professional reputational interest + available ethics complaint mechanism = registration board complaint
The combination of Engineer B's public criticism of Engineer A's work and Engineer A's access to a formal complaint mechanism was sufficient to produce the ethics complaint
Engineer B Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Heating Equipment Sizing
Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that constitutes an honest technical disagreement rather than an ethical violation, demonstrating the capability to reach and stand by technically grounded adverse conclusions.
Engineer B's adverse finding on heating equipment sizing was the basis for Engineer A's complaint, but the finding represented legitimate professional judgment rather than misconduct.
Issuing a report concluding that the original heating equipment sizing was inadequate and recommending higher-capacity equipment, despite this conclusion being adverse to Engineer A's original design work.
concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity
Engineer B Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Post-Occupancy Inspection Context
Engineer A alleged Engineer B obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A; the Board's analysis required assessment of whether the method of obtaining the engagement was improper.
Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
Engineer B was constrained from obtaining the post-occupancy inspection engagement through improper or questionable methods, including by exploiting the new owner's dissatisfaction with Engineer A's original design to generate additional remediation work; however, the Board found that Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned inspection and issuing an honest report — did not violate this constraint.
At the time Engineer B accepted the inspection engagement and issued the report
Engineer B Joint Inspection Adverse Opinion Epistemic Grounding
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to ground adverse technical opinions in available evidence by participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing adverse conclusions about the wiring design.
Post-occupancy inspection of housing facility, including joint wiring inspection organized by the new owner
Participation in joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and city inspector, which provided the epistemic foundation for the wiring-related findings
Engineer B was obligated to participate in available joint inspection opportunities with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing adverse conclusions
participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector
Engineer B Joint Multi-Party Inspection Coordination and Participation
Joint Multi-Party Inspection Coordination and Participation Capability
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to participate constructively in a joint inspection organized by the new facility owner that included Engineer A and the city wiring inspector, using the joint inspection as the epistemic foundation for wiring-related adverse opinions.
Joint wiring inspection organized by new facility owner as part of post-occupancy review
Participation in joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and city wiring inspector, which provided the basis for wiring-related findings
Engineer B participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector
the joint inspection did not reveal a wiring problem
Engineer B Joint Multi-Party Wiring Inspection Participation
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to participate constructively in a joint inspection organized by the new owner that included Engineer A (the original designer) and the city wiring inspector, providing the epistemic foundation for subsequent technical opinions.
The joint inspection was organized at the owner's request and included the original engineer, the reviewing engineer, and a regulatory inspector.
Participating in the joint wiring inspection alongside Engineer A and the city wiring inspector, which resulted in no defects being found in the wiring — a finding that was then incorporated into the subsequent report.
Engineer B Joint Wiring Inspection Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion
The joint wiring inspection revealed no defects in the wiring system, which was a relevant finding that Engineer B was obligated to incorporate into the overall assessment
Engineer B was constrained to consult all reasonably available evidence — including participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical opinions about Engineer A's original wiring design, ensuring that adverse conclusions were grounded in full available evidence rather than incomplete assessment.
NSPE Code of Ethics professional objectivity provisions; BER analysis
Prior to and during preparation of the inspection report
Engineer B Peer Review Program Public Benefit Recognition Post-Occupancy Inspection
Peer Review Program Public Benefit Recognition Capability
Engineer B's conduct in conducting the post-occupancy inspection and issuing an honest, balanced report exemplifies the public benefit of independent engineering review — providing the new owner with accurate information about facility systems and serving the broader public interest in engineering quality.
Engineer B's independent review provided the new owner with accurate information about MEP system adequacy seven years after original occupancy.
Conducting a thorough post-occupancy inspection, participating in joint wiring inspection, and issuing a balanced report that served the new owner's genuine interests and the public interest in accurate facility assessment.
Engineer B Peer Review Technical Comment Opportunity Purpose Articulation
Peer Review Technical Comment Opportunity Purpose Articulation Capability
Engineer B demonstrated awareness of the purpose of the peer review notification requirement — to give the original engineer opportunity to explain technical decisions — and applied this understanding in recognizing that the notification requirement did not apply given Engineer A's terminated connection with the project.
Determination of notification obligations before commencing post-occupancy inspection
Proceeding with review without notification, consistent with understanding that the notification purpose was not implicated by Engineer A's terminated connection
Engineer B Post-Completion Notification Exemption Recognition
Post-Completion Contract-Terminated Peer Review Notification Exemption Recognition Capability
Engineer B correctly recognized that because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the original client had been fully completed and paid seven years prior, no active incumbent relationship existed requiring prior notification before commencing the post-occupancy inspection.
Engineer B was retained by the new owner approximately seven years after original occupancy; Engineer A had been fully paid and the project fully completed before the ownership change.
Proceeding with the post-occupancy inspection without prior notification to Engineer A, which was found to be ethically permissible given the fully completed nature of Engineer A's prior engagement.
The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
Engineer B Post-Completion Review Without Notification Permissibility
Engineer A alleged Engineer B acted improperly by reviewing and criticizing Engineer A's design without Engineer A's knowledge; the Board found this allegation without merit because Engineer A's relationship with the project had long since terminated.
Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Peer Review Notification Non-Requirement Constraint
Engineer B was not required to notify Engineer A before conducting the post-occupancy inspection because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and paid seven years prior, satisfying the exception to NSPE Code Section III.8.a's notification requirement.
NSPE Code Section III.8.a; BER Cases 68-6, 68-11
At the time Engineer B accepted the inspection engagement, approximately seven years after original occupancy
Engineer B Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Notification Permissibility Recognition
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize that because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and paid years earlier, Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before conducting the post-occupancy inspection.
Post-occupancy inspection of housing facility seven years after original occupancy, with Engineer A's connection fully terminated
Proceeding with post-occupancy inspection without notifying Engineer A, consistent with the terminated-connection exemption under Section 12(a)
Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection, because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Reporting Objectivity
Engineer A alleged Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information; BER analysis required objectivity and completeness in the inspection report
Post-Occupancy Inspection Scope Completeness and Objectivity Constraint
Engineer B was constrained to report all material findings honestly, completely, and objectively in the post-occupancy inspection report — including both the finding that there was no plumbing design problem and the finding that the heating equipment sizing was inadequate — prohibiting selective reporting that would make the original design appear worse or better than it actually was.
NSPE Code of Ethics professional report integrity provisions; BER analysis
At the time Engineer B prepared and submitted the inspection report
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Report Completeness and Objectivity
Engineer A alleged the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information; the Board's analysis required assessment of whether Engineer B's report met the completeness and objectivity standard.
Engineer B was required to report all material findings honestly and completely, including both the favorable finding (no plumbing design problem) and the adverse finding (design inadequacies in heating equipment sizing), without selective omission of either category.
During preparation and submission of the post-occupancy inspection report
Engineer B Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection Deficiency Identification
Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection and Deficiency Identification Capability
Engineer B possessed the technical capability to conduct a systematic post-occupancy inspection of MEP systems — including wiring, plumbing, and hot water/heating equipment — and to identify design inadequacies in the original equipment sizing, leading to a technically grounded recommendation for higher-capacity equipment installation.
Engineer B was retained by the new owner to inspect the facility's systems and produced findings across wiring, plumbing, and heating domains.
Conducting a further study of the plumbing and heating systems after the joint wiring inspection, identifying design inadequacies in original hot water and heating equipment sizing, and recommending installation of higher-capacity equipment.
Engineer B Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection and Deficiency Identification
Engineer B demonstrated the technical capability to conduct a systematic post-occupancy inspection of the housing facility's mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, identifying design inadequacies in hot water and heating equipment sizing while finding no plumbing design problem.
Post-occupancy inspection of large housing facility seven years after original occupancy
Conducting post-occupancy inspection that identified inadequate hot water and heating equipment sizing as design deficiencies while finding plumbing design adequate
Engineer B concluded that there were design inadequacies in the original hot water and heating equipment sizing
Engineer B found no plumbing design problem
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Review Notification Non-Requirement Terminated Connection
Engineer A alleged Engineer B violated Section 12(a) by reviewing the original design without Engineer A's knowledge; BER found the exception clause satisfied because Engineer A's connection had been terminated years earlier
Discharged Engineer Peer Review Notification Non-Requirement Constraint
Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection because Engineer A's connection with the project had been terminated some years earlier, satisfying the exception clause of Section 12(a), and because Engineer A already had actual knowledge that Engineer B had been retained to conduct the inspection.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12(a); BER Cases 68-6 and 68-11
Section 12(a) - 'An Engineer in private practice will not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.'
Recommendation could generate additional engineering work for Engineer B if he were retained to oversee the upgrade, creating appearance of self-serving conduct
Recommendation implicitly validates the criticism of Engineer A's original design decisions
Duty to provide actionable recommendations for client benefit
Obligation to recommend remediation proportionate to identified deficiencies
Public safety duty to recommend corrective action for inadequate systems
Provide the owner with a concrete, actionable remediation path to resolve the identified design inadequacies in hot water and heating equipment sizing
Ability to specify appropriate replacement equipment
Knowledge of hot water and heating system standards
Included in the filed report, approximately seven years after original occupancy
Engineer B made a deliberate professional recommendation within his filed report that the owner install higher capacity hot water and heating equipment to address the identified design inadequacies.
Engineer B Registration Board Complaint Subject
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Facility inspection and MEP systems review', 'complaint_outcome': 'Found to have acted ethically'}
Engineer B conducted a post-occupancy facility inspection and review of Engineer A's original designs, concluded changes were needed, and subsequently became the subject of a formal complaint filed by Engineer A with the state registration board alleging improper conduct under Section 12(a). The ethics board affirmed Engineer B acted ethically, finding no malicious intent and that the review served client and public interests.
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'New Facility Owner'}
{'type': 'reviewed_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'subject_of_complaint_before', 'target': 'State Registration Board'}
Registration Board Complaint Subject Engineer
whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified
Engineer B Self-Interest Disclosure Heating Equipment Recommendation
Engineer A alleged Engineer B's actions were self-serving; the recommendation for higher-capacity equipment would generate additional engineering work for Engineer B, creating a potential conflict between objective professional judgment and commercial self-interest.
Reviewing Engineer Self-Interest Disclosure in Post-Occupancy Inspection Constraint
Engineer B was required to disclose to the new owner any potential commercial self-interest in recommending higher-capacity heating equipment installation, given that Engineer B stood to benefit from being retained to design and oversee the recommended remediation work.
NSPE Code Section III.2; NSPE Code Section II.4
At the time of issuing the recommendation for higher-capacity equipment installation
Engineer B Self-Interest Disclosure Reviewing Engineer Remediation Recommendation
Engineer B's report recommended changes to heating equipment sizing, and Engineer B potentially stood to benefit from the remediation work; Engineer A alleged Engineer B's actions were self-serving
Engineer B was constrained to disclose to the new owner any potential self-interest in recommending higher-capacity heating equipment installation — given that Engineer B stood to benefit commercially from being retained to design and oversee the recommended remediation — and to ensure that the recommendation was grounded in genuine technical necessity rather than commercial self-interest.
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest and objectivity provisions
At the time Engineer B issued the inspection report and remediation recommendations
Engineer B's plumbing and heating report filed before Engineer A's complaint to state registration board
Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity. Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly.
Engineer B's plumbing and heating report filed
Engineer A's complaint to state registration board
State Engineering Registration Board Rules: Misconduct Reporting and Complaint Procedures
Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
Engineer A in filing the formal complaint against Engineer B
Engineer A invoked the state engineering registration board's complaint mechanism, alleging Engineer B committed 'misconduct' — the board's rules and procedures govern what constitutes reportable misconduct and the obligations of engineers who believe a colleague has violated professional conduct rules
NSPE Code of Ethics professional obligations
Professional Norm: Ethical Limits on Engineer Competition and Criticism of Colleagues
Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
Engineer A in the misconduct complaint; BER in evaluating whether Engineer B's conduct crossed ethical lines in competitive solicitation
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's actions were self-serving at the expense of Engineer A's dignity and reputation, and that Engineer B obtained employment through questionable criticism of Engineer A — invoking the prohibition on injuring another engineer's reputation as a means of soliciting work
Ethics Board Issues Engineer B Exoneration
Ruling against Engineer A's complaint may leave him without professional recourse through the ethics body
Ruling establishes precedent that could limit future use of ethics complaints to suppress legitimate independent engineering reviews
Duty to apply Code of Ethics consistently with prior precedent
Duty to provide principled ethical analysis based on Code of Ethics
Obligation to protect the public interest in independent engineering review
Obligation to provide guidance for future similar situations
Protection of legitimate independent professional review
Provide a clear ethical ruling that protects the public interest in independent engineering review, affirms the proper scope of Code of Ethics Section 12 and 12(a), and provides guidance for future similar situations
Application of Code of Ethics provisions
Institutional judgment in public interest determinations
Conclusion of ethics case analysis, following Engineer A's complaint
The ethics body made a deliberate analytical and institutional decision to conclude that Engineer B did not act unethically, finding no evidence of intent to injure Engineer A's professional reputation and affirming that reviewing another engineer's prior work for a new client is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
Restriction may leave Engineer A without a definitive ruling on the legal misconduct allegation from this body
Scope limitation means the ethics body's conclusions do not resolve the registration board complaint
Duty to provide clear and principled ethical analysis within the ethics body's mandate
Institutional obligation to operate within proper jurisdictional boundaries
Obligation of institutional integrity and appropriate deference to other regulatory bodies
Separation of ethical and legal determinations
Maintain appropriate jurisdictional boundaries between the ethics body and the state registration board, ensuring the ethics analysis focuses on professional ethical standards rather than legal determinations
Principled institutional decision-making
During ethics case analysis, following Engineer A's complaint
The ethics body made a deliberate institutional decision to restrict its analysis solely to whether Engineer B acted ethically under the Code of Ethics, explicitly declining to advise the state registration board or pass judgment on whether Engineer B's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law.
Ethics Board Restricts Analytical Scope → Ethics Board Issues Engineer B Exoneration
The ethics body made a deliberate institutional decision to restrict its analysis solely to whether Engineer B's conduct violated applicable ethics provisions, and this scoping decision directly shaped the analytical framework that produced the conclusion that Engineer B did not violate professional ethics
Had the ethics board applied a broader analytical scope examining the technical accuracy of Engineer B's criticisms or the manner of communication, the outcome might have differed; had Engineer B's conduct actually violated applicable ethics provisions, the restricted scope would still have produced a finding against Engineer B
Applicable ethics provisions that did not prohibit Engineer B's independent review and reporting conduct
Engineer B's actual conduct falling within professionally permissible bounds under the applicable ethics framework
Ethics board's institutional authority to define the scope of its own analysis
Restriction of analysis to Engineer B's conduct rather than the underlying technical merits of the design criticism
Scope restriction to conduct analysis + Engineer B's conduct within permissible bounds + applicable ethics provisions = exoneration
The combination of the narrowed analytical scope and Engineer B's professionally defensible conduct was sufficient to produce the exoneration outcome
For Engineer A: potential exposure of design deficiencies under peer scrutiny; For Engineer B: collaborative process might limit scope of independent findings on wiring
Duty to respond to client/owner concerns
Obligation to conduct objective technical assessment
Professional cooperation in joint inspection process
Transparency through multi-party inspection format
Engineer A (Original Engineer) and Engineer B (Reviewing Engineer)
Collaboratively assess the wiring systems to resolve the owner's reported concerns and determine whether defects existed
Ability to assess compliance with applicable codes
Shortly after new owner's retention of Engineer B, approximately seven years after original occupancy
Both Engineer A and Engineer B, along with the city wiring inspector, participated in a joint inspection of the facility's wiring at the new owner's request, which found no defects in the wiring.
Joint Wiring Inspection Participation → No Wiring Defects Found
Both Engineer A and Engineer B, along with the city wiring inspector, participated in a joint inspection, and this collaborative multi-party inspection concluded with no wiring defects found, clearing Engineer A's electrical design work of the initial complaints
Had wiring defects actually existed, the joint inspection would likely have identified them given the participation of three independent parties including a regulatory inspector; the no-defects finding reflects both the inspection process and the actual condition of the wiring
Actual absence of wiring defects in the installed electrical systems
Participation of Engineer A as the original electrical design engineer
Participation of Engineer B as the independent reviewing engineer
Participation of the city wiring inspector as the regulatory authority
Joint multi-party inspection + actual absence of defects + professional consensus among all three parties = no wiring defects finding
The combination of independent professional review, regulatory inspection, and original design engineer participation created a sufficiently robust process to conclusively clear the wiring systems
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 12 (Historical)
Code of Ethics - Section 12 - '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.'
The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's conduct
Primary normative reference governing whether an engineer may injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation or practice of another engineer, and whether indiscriminate criticism of another engineer's work is permissible
NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 12(a) (Historical)
Peer Review Without Notification Standard
we affirm previous cases holding that it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's peer review of Engineer A's original design
Governs the prohibition on reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, or unless the prior engineer's connection with the work has been terminated; central to determining whether Engineer B's review was ethically permissible
Board of Ethical Review in analyzing obligations of both Engineer A and Engineer B
Primary normative framework for evaluating whether Engineer B's conduct in preparing and filing the inspection report, and Engineer A's complaint to the registration board, were ethically proper
Possible professional conflict between Engineer A and Engineer B
Review of original engineering designs by Engineer A, potentially exposing prior design deficiencies
Duty to protect occupants through due diligence
Owner's right to obtain independent professional review of facility condition
Owner's right to independent professional counsel
Obtain an independent professional engineering assessment of reported facility problems to protect the owner's investment and ensure occupant safety
Ability to articulate facility complaints and scope of inspection
Owner judgment in selecting qualified professional engineer
Approximately seven years after original occupancy, following change of ownership
The new owner of the facility made a deliberate decision to retain Engineer B to conduct an independent engineering inspection of the facility following the ownership transfer and discovery of reported problems with the wiring.
Plumbing design cleared; investigation focus narrows to hot water and heating equipment sizing; Engineer A's plumbing design vindicated; remaining concern isolated to equipment capacity
Engineer B's independent investigation of the plumbing systems found no design inadequacies, partially clearing Engineer A's mechanical engineering work.
Wiring safety concern resolved; investigation focus shifts to plumbing and heating complaints; Engineer A's electrical design partially vindicated; Engineer B's mandate broadens to cover remaining complaints
The joint inspection by Engineer A, Engineer B, and the city wiring inspector concluded with no wiring defects identified in the facility.
Facility stakeholder landscape changes; new owner has legitimate interest in understanding the condition and design adequacy of the facility; sets the stage for Engineer B's engagement
Seven years after occupancy, ownership of the housing facility changed hands, bringing a new owner with no prior relationship with Engineer A and no knowledge of the original design decisions.
Ownership Transfer Occurs → New Owner Retains Engineer B
Seven years after occupancy, ownership of the housing facility changed hands, bringing a new owner who, confronted with documented wiring and plumbing complaints, made a deliberate decision to retain Engineer B to conduct an independent review
Had ownership not transferred, the original owner with an established relationship with Engineer A might have addressed complaints through Engineer A directly, making Engineer B's independent engagement unlikely
Availability of Engineer B as an independent qualified professional
Existence of unresolved facility complaints (wiring and plumbing/heating)
New owner's lack of prior relationship with Engineer A and absence of loyalty to original design team
Transfer of ownership creating a new principal with independent interests
Ownership transfer + documented complaints + new owner's independent judgment = retention of independent engineer
The new owner's fresh perspective combined with existing complaints created sufficient motivation to seek independent professional assessment
Peer Review Restriction Public Interest Non-Suppression Constraint Application
The Board recognized that a restrictive interpretation of Section III.8.a that would require notification even for post-completion inspections of terminated relationships would conflict with the public interest in legitimate engineering review.
Peer Review Judgment and Discretion Fact-Specific Safety Assessment Constraint
The registration board was constrained from adopting an interpretation of peer review notification requirements that would prohibit all post-completion inspections of prior engineers' work without notification, because such an interpretation would suppress legitimate post-occupancy engineering assessments and harm the public interest in identifying design deficiencies in occupied facilities.
A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case.
At the time of adjudicating Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B
Peer Review Restrictive Interpretation Client Public Interest Non-Subordination Engineer A Complaint Context
BER rejected Engineer A's restrictive reading of Section 12(a) on grounds that it would harm clients and the public by preventing legitimate engineering review of original designs
Peer Review Restrictive Interpretation Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination Constraint
Engineer A's proposed interpretation of Section 12(a) — that Engineer B could not ethically review the original design without notification — was constrained by the principle that such a reading would be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally, would render post-occupancy inspections ethically impermissible, and would subject the profession to justifiable criticism for placing member interests above public interests.
At the time of BER adjudication and as ongoing interpretive guidance
Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves
Peer Review Section 12a Purpose Limitation Notification Non-Blocking Interpretation
BER articulated the purpose of Section 12(a) to prevent its misuse as a tool to block legitimate engineering review
BER and all engineers interpreting Section 12(a)
Peer Review Notification Purpose-Limited Scope Constraint
The peer review notification requirement of Section 12(a) is constrained in its purpose to providing the original engineer an opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions — it cannot be interpreted as a mechanism to prevent legitimate post-occupancy inspections or design reviews, particularly when the original engineer's connection has been terminated.
the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing his comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client
Ongoing interpretive guidance for future cases
we affirm previous cases holding that it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
NSPE professional norms and engineering registration board rules
Professional Norm: Engineer Review of Another Engineer's Work Without Notification
Engineer A in framing the misconduct complaint; BER in evaluating Engineer B's conduct
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B acted improperly by reviewing and criticizing Engineer A's original design work without Engineer A's knowledge, raising the question of whether Engineer B was obligated to notify Engineer A before conducting the inspection and filing the report
Plumbing and Heating Complaints Documented
Investigation scope formally expands to mechanical systems; Engineer B now examining Engineer A's mechanical engineering work directly; potential for design criticism increases
Complaints from occupants or the new owner regarding plumbing and heating performance were formally recognized as requiring investigation, expanding the scope of Engineer B's review beyond the initial wiring focus.
Prime Professional Engineer Specialist-Retaining Prime Consultant
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'role_type': 'Prime consultant', 'specialty': 'General engineering / project prime'}
The prime PE who retained Engineer A as a sub-consultant to provide specialized mechanical and electrical engineering services for the large housing project.
{'type': 'prime_consultant_for', 'target': 'Housing Project'}
{'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project
NSPE Code of Ethics and professional engineering norms
Professional Norm: Objectivity and Completeness of Engineering Reports
Engineer A in the complaint; BER in evaluating whether Engineer B's report met professional standards
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, directly invoking the standard that engineering reports must be accurate, complete, and not selectively framed to mislead clients or disparage other engineers
Project transitions from construction phase to operational phase; Engineer A's active role ends but latent liability persists; occupants become primary affected stakeholders
Project completion date (Year 0 of occupancy)
The large housing project was completed and occupied by residents, marking the end of Engineer A's active engagement and the beginning of the facility's operational life.
Public Stakeholder Served by Independent Review
{'type': 'General public', 'interest': 'Access to independent engineering review and correction of design deficiencies'}
The general public is identified as a key stakeholder whose interests are served by permitting engineers to independently review and critique original designs. The ethics board explicitly invoked public interest to reject any reading of Section 12 that would suppress legitimate peer review, noting that placing professional self-interest above public welfare would subject the profession to justifiable criticism.
{'type': 'protected_by', 'target': 'Independent peer review process'}
{'type': 'served_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally
On the basis of the summarized facts above, was Engineer B unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner?
Did Engineer B have an obligation to disclose to the new owner that his recommendation to install higher-capacity equipment would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for himself, and does that undisclosed financial interest compromise the objectivity of his report?
Given that Engineer A was notified of Engineer B's retention and participated in the joint wiring inspection, does Engineer A's subsequent complaint to the registration board constitute an improper attempt to suppress legitimate peer review, and should the Board have examined whether Engineer A's complaint itself violated the Code of Ethics?
Seven years elapsed between original occupancy and Engineer B's inspection. To what extent should the passage of time, evolving building codes, and changed usage patterns factor into the ethical evaluation of whether Engineer B's adverse findings about original equipment sizing were a fair basis for criticism of Engineer A's design decisions made under the conditions prevailing at the time of original construction?
Should the Board have addressed whether Engineer B was obligated to provide Engineer A with an opportunity to review and respond to the draft report before it was submitted to the new owner, particularly given that the report contained adverse findings about Engineer A's professional work that could damage his reputation and future business prospects?
Does the principle of Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility — which allows Engineer B to review Engineer A's completed work without notification — conflict with the principle of Professional Dignity that Engineer A invokes as entitling him to advance notice before adverse findings about his work are reported to a client?
Does the principle of Independent Engineering Review as a Client and Public Interest Instrument conflict with the principle of Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique when the reviewing engineer stands to benefit financially from the remediation work his adverse report recommends — and if so, which principle should prevail and under what conditions?
Does the principle of Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility — which protects Engineer B's right to reach adverse technical conclusions — conflict with the principle of Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A, which demands that Engineer B's report include all pertinent contextual information such as the age of the design, applicable codes at the time of construction, and any changed usage conditions that might explain the equipment sizing?
Does the principle of Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review — which condemns Engineer A's complaint as an attempt to suppress valid technical scrutiny — conflict with the principle of Prohibition on Reputation Injury, which Engineer A legitimately invokes to protect himself from adverse professional findings that may have been influenced by Engineer B's competitive self-interest in recommending costly remediation work?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill a categorical duty to provide honest, complete, and objective findings to the new owner, regardless of the reputational consequences for Engineer A as the original designer?
From a consequentialist standpoint, did the outcome of Engineer B's independent inspection and report — identifying heating equipment sizing inadequacies while clearing the plumbing design — produce a net benefit for the new owner, the public occupants of the facility, and the integrity of the engineering profession, sufficient to justify any reputational harm to Engineer A?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of intellectual honesty and collegial fairness when filing a registration board complaint against Engineer B, or did the complaint reflect self-interested retaliation inconsistent with the character expected of a professional engineer?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B exhibit the professional virtues of courage and integrity by issuing an adverse technical finding against a predecessor engineer's design — while also exonerating that engineer on the plumbing system — rather than softening conclusions to avoid inter-professional conflict?
If Engineer B had notified Engineer A before conducting the independent plumbing and heating study — beyond the joint wiring inspection already performed — would that notification have satisfied any collegial obligation under Section 12(a), and would it have materially changed the ethical assessment of Engineer B's conduct?
What if Engineer B had declined the inspection engagement entirely upon learning that the new owner's dissatisfaction was directed at a specific predecessor engineer — would such a refusal have better served professional ethics, or would it have improperly subordinated the owner's and public's legitimate interest in independent engineering review to collegial protectionism?
If Engineer B's report had failed to note that the plumbing design was adequate — reporting only the heating equipment sizing deficiency — would that selective reporting have constituted a violation of the completeness and objectivity obligations, and would it have lent credibility to Engineer A's complaint of a self-serving, non-objective report?
What if Engineer A, upon learning of Engineer B's retention, had proactively offered to share original design documentation and calculations with Engineer B before the report was finalized — would such cooperation have altered the technical conclusions, reduced the likelihood of the registration board complaint, and better exemplified the collegial professional conduct the Code of Ethics envisions?
State Registration Board Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Adjudication
The state registration board needed the capability to recognize that Engineer B's adverse technical conclusion about heating equipment sizing constitutes an honest professional disagreement rather than misconduct, and that Engineer A's complaint did not establish cognizable ethical violations.
The registration board received Engineer A's complaint and served as the regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the professional conduct dispute.
Adjudicating Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B and assessing whether the conduct alleged constitutes professional misconduct under applicable standards.
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board
Facility moves from passive operation to active investigation status; wiring complaints create safety concern requiring professional evaluation; Engineer B's engagement becomes necessary
Shortly after or concurrent with ownership transfer (Year 7)
Occupant or operational complaints about wiring problems emerged and were brought to the attention of the new owner, triggering the initial engineering investigation.
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Non-obstruction prevails: Engineer A may respond to adverse findings through technical rebuttal but may not use regulatory complaints to deter legitimate post-occupancy review
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The improper complaint prohibition resolved the tension by identifying Engineer A's complaint as the ethics violation, not Engineer B's review.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
The prohibition on improper complaint filing prevails: Engineer A's complaint is grounded in reputational self-interest rather than genuine ethics concern; Engineer B's conduct — a legitimately commissioned inspection with balanced findings — does not constitute misconduct
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
Engineer A's professional dignity interest in not having prior work adversely reviewed did not override the obligation not to obstruct the legitimate review commissioned by the new owner.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Engineer A's complaint was found to be an improper use of the regulatory system; Engineer B's conduct was ethically permissible and the complaint itself was the ethics violation.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
Professional dignity interest was outweighed by the termination of connection and client/public interest in independent review; the dignity interest was served by the joint inspection in which Engineer A participated.
Professional dignity is not violated by Engineer B's conduct: the principle protects against malicious or false attacks, not against legitimate technical critique; Engineer B's balanced report represents objective professional assessment rather than an unjust reputational attack
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
Honest professional disagreement resolved in favor of permitting Engineer B's adverse findings as a legitimate exercise of independent professional judgment.
The absence of malicious intent and the legitimacy of the commissioning context resolved the tension in favor of permitting the adverse findings without ethics violation.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
The available evidence consultation principle is satisfied: Engineer B conducted a joint inspection with Engineer A for the wiring system and a further independent study for the plumbing and heating systems before issuing findings
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
Honest disagreement permissibility prevails: Engineer B's adverse findings about equipment sizing are a legitimate professional judgment, not misconduct; the registration board should not find Engineer B guilty of misconduct solely because conclusions differ from Engineer A's original design
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
The completeness principle appears satisfied by Engineer B's report: reporting both the plumbing adequacy and the heating inadequacy demonstrates non-selective technical assessment; Engineer A's allegation of incompleteness is not supported by the reported facts
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
Engineer B's objective methodology — joint inspection, no showing of malicious intent — satisfied the objectivity obligation and distinguished the review from prohibited competitive critique.
Objectivity prevails: Engineer B reported findings as technically assessed, not as uniformly adverse to Engineer A; the balanced nature of the report supports a finding of objective professional conduct
Client and public interests in independent review outweighed Engineer A's professional dignity interest in avoiding adverse findings from a legitimately commissioned review.
The termination-of-connection exception resolved the tension in favor of permitting review without notification; the knowledge requirement's rationale did not apply to a long-concluded engagement.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
The incumbent notification principle does not apply with full force in this context: Engineer A was not an active incumbent (project completed seven years prior, fully paid); moreover, Engineer A participated in the joint wiring inspection, providing direct engagement with the review process for that system
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.81
joint wiring inspection before Engineer B's plumbing and heating study and report
The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring. The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems. Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
Engineer B's plumbing and heating study and report
new owner retaining Engineer B before joint wiring inspection
The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring. At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
ownership change meets new owner retaining Engineer B
Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed. The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility.
project completion and occupancy before Engineer A's connection with project terminated
Engineer A was fully paid for his services... the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier [relative to the ownership change].
project completion and occupancy before ownership change
Engineer B conducted the post-occupancy inspection and review of Engineer A's MEP designs based on objective technical assessment — participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector — without evidence of bias, malic
Engineer B's report demonstrated objectivity by finding no problem with the plumbing design while identifying inadequacies in the heating equipment sizing — a balanced assessment that did not uniformly condemn Engineer A's prior work
Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that differs from Engineer A's original design decisions — a permissible honest disagreement a
Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment represented a legitimate professional disagreement about the adequacy of the original MEP designs — a normal feature of engineering practice tha
Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings, and conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems — demonstrating reasonable evidence consult
Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment, reached after a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector, did not constitute a malicious or false attempt to injure Engineer A's
Engineer B's review of Engineer A's MEP designs was ethically permissible because Engineer A's connection to the project had been terminated years earlier and full payment had been received, extinguishing any notification obligation under S
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, invoking the objectivity standard as the basis for a board complaint
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's report was 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A', characterizing Engineer B's technically grounded inspection findings as a malicious competitive attack on Engineer A'
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report and recommendations damaged Engineer A's professional dignity and reputation, framing the adverse technical findings as an unjust attack on Engineer A's professional standing
Engineer A alleged Engineer B's report did not include all pertinent information; however, the report's structure — finding no plumbing problem while identifying heating inadequacies — demonstrates completeness by reporting both favorable a
Engineer A filed a board complaint against Engineer B for conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing a technically grounded report — conduct that does not constitute professional misconduct — thereby weapon
Engineer A's formal complaint to the state registration board against Engineer B was improper because Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection and adverse findings constituted technically permissible and ethically compliant conduct; filing th
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B obtained employment 'by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge', invoking the principle that reviewing engineers must notify the incumbent before issuing adverse findings; ho
Engineer A's board complaint against Engineer B constitutes an attempt to obstruct a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by characterizing the reviewer's adverse findings as 'misconduct', thereby discouraging independent tec
Engineer A's filing of a formal complaint against Engineer B with the state registration board — after Engineer B's legitimate inspection found deficiencies in Engineer A's original MEP designs — constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B'
Engineer A's professional dignity interest in being notified of and having an opportunity to respond to a review of original design work was acknowledged as a legitimate concern underlying Section 12(a)'s knowledge requirement, but this int
Engineer A, who knew that Engineer B had been retained by the new owner to inspect the facility and that this review would necessarily entail evaluation of the original designs, had an obligation not to obstruct that review — and Engineer A
Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B misused Section 12(a) as a shield against adverse technical findings rather than invoking it for its legitimate purpose of enabling the prior engineer to provide contextual explanation to improve th
The new facility owner's retention of Engineer B to inspect the building's systems and review original designs served both the owner's interest in resolving current facility problems and the broader public interest in engineering quality; a
Engineer B was obligated to consult all available evidence — including participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before forming adverse technical opinions about the facility's systems.
Engineer B was obligated to consult available evidence — including participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical findings about Engineer A's original MEP designs, ensuri
Engineer B was obligated to participate in available joint inspection opportunities with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing adverse findings, ensuring that adverse opinions were grounded in shared evidentiary review.
Engineer B was not obligated to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection because Engineer A's connection with the project had been terminated years earlier upon full payment and project completion, satisfying the te
Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection, because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and terminated through full payment years pr
Engineer B was obligated to be objective and complete in the inspection report, including both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (heating equipment sizing inadequacies), without selective omission of perti
Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that may differ from Engineer A's original design decisions; this honest technical disagreemen
Engineer B was obligated to report all material findings honestly and completely to the new facility owner — including findings that identified inadequacies in Engineer A's original heating equipment specifications — without suppressing adv
Engineer B was obligated to report all material findings honestly and completely to the new owner, including the conclusion that there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of hot water and heating equipment, without suppressing a
Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment did not constitute a violation of Section 12's prohibition on reputation injury, because there was no showing of malicious or false intent; the
Engineer B was obligated to understand and apply Section 12(a)'s notification requirement according to its actual purpose — enabling the original engineer to submit technical explanations — rather than as a prohibition on review, and to pro
Engineer B was ethically entitled to proceed with the post-occupancy inspection, and the BER was obligated to recognize that interpreting Section 12(a) to prohibit such review would be contrary to the interests of the client and the public,
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from retaliating against Engineer B through a formal registration board complaint and misconduct allegations when Engineer B's adverse findings about heating equipment sizing represented a legitimate tech
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from retaliating against Engineer B through a formal registration board complaint after Engineer B's honest professional judgment found inadequacies in Engineer A's original equipment specifications, reco
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B when Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection, participating in a joint review, and issu
Engineer A violated the prohibition on filing improper complaints by initiating a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B for conduct — post-occupancy inspection, joint wiring review participation, and honest technical report
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from obstructing Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by filing a registration board complaint that characterized the review as improper 'misconduct', recognizing that peer rev
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from obstructing Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by filing a registration board complaint characterizing Engineer B's honest technical findings as misconduct; Engineer A's
{'role_type': 'New property owner / client', 'acquisition_timing': 'Seven years after original occupancy'}
Acquired ownership of the housing facility seven years after original occupancy; retained Engineer B to inspect the facility; organized a joint inspection of wiring with both engineers and the city inspector; raised concerns about plumbing and heating systems to Engineer B.
{'type': 'notified', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'requested_joint_inspection_with', 'target': 'City Wiring Inspector'}
{'type': 'requested_joint_inspection_with', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'requested_joint_inspection_with', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
New Facility Owner Retaining Inspection Engineer
Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed
At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems
State Registration Board Regulatory Authority
{'type': 'State licensing authority', 'function': 'Professional conduct adjudication and licensure enforcement'}
The state registration board received Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B and serves as the regulatory authority with jurisdiction over professional conduct and licensure violations. The ethics board explicitly disclaimed any intent to advise or pass judgment on the registration board's proceedings.
{'type': 'has_jurisdiction_over', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'received_complaint_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board
he shall present such information to the proper authority for action
Engineer B Employment Acquisition Through Predecessor Design Criticism
From new owner's retention of Engineer B through registration board complaint
Reviewing Engineer Employment Acquisition Through Predecessor Criticism State
Engineer B's retention by new owner and subsequent report critical of Engineer A's original design
Registration board determination (pending)
New owner's retention of Engineer B following dissatisfaction with original facility systems
Engineer B Review Without Malicious Intent
Throughout Engineer B's review engagement and report preparation
Review Without Malicious Intent Confirmed State
Engineer B's motivational state in conducting the review and preparing the report
Ethics board's affirmative finding that no malicious intent was shown
Ethics board's evaluation of the information submitted regarding Engineer B's conduct
Legitimate Inter-Engineer Technical Disagreement on Heating System Adequacy
From Engineer B's report through registration board proceedings
The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
Technical disagreement between Engineer A (original designer) and Engineer B (reviewing engineer) regarding adequacy of heating equipment sizing
Registration board determination or technical resolution (pending)
Engineer B's conclusion that original equipment sizing was inadequate for hot water and heating
Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B Report
Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection report on plumbing and heating systems
Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
In this context, objectivity requires that Engineer B's report present all material technical findings without self-serving selectivity; however, the report's acknowledgment that plumbing was adequate while identifying heating inadequacies suggests Engineer B did apply objective assessment rather than uniformly adverse critique
Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
The objectivity principle cuts against Engineer A's complaint: Engineer B's report was balanced (finding no plumbing problem while identifying heating inadequacies), suggesting objective rather than self-serving assessment
Ownership Change Triggering New Engineering Inspection
From new owner's retention of Engineer B through registration board complaint and ethical review
Post-Occupancy Design Adequacy Dispute State
The housing facility's mechanical and electrical systems, specifically plumbing, heating, and wiring
The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring
Change of facility ownership approximately seven years after original occupancy, followed by new owner's retention of Engineer B and identification of alleged design inadequacies
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B
Engineer B's inspection report and recommendations
Client's right to independent inspection
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's report was 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A', characterizing Engineer B's technically grounded inspection findings as a malicious competitive attack on Engineer A's professional standing
Engineer A invokes this principle as the basis for the board complaint; however, the principle's application must distinguish between malicious reputation attack and legitimate technical critique — Engineer B's balanced report (finding plumbing adequate while identifying heating inadequacies) does not exhibit the malice or falsity required to constitute a violation
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
The prohibition does not apply to Engineer B's conduct: Engineer B's critique was technically grounded, balanced, and commissioned by the client — not a malicious competitive attack; Engineer A's complaint misapplies this principle
Restrictive Peer Review Interpretation Public Interest Conflict
During the ethics board's deliberation on the case
Peer Review Restriction Public Interest Conflict State
The ethics board's interpretive choice regarding the scope of peer review prohibitions
Ethics board's ruling rejecting the restrictive interpretation and affirming the legitimacy of peer review
Engineer A's complaint implicitly advancing a reading of Section 12 that would restrict Engineer B's review
Reviewing Engineer Employment Through Predecessor Criticism Context
From the new owner's decision to retain Engineer B through the ethics board's analysis
Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility
Engineer B's acquisition of the inspection engagement in the context of dissatisfaction with Engineer A's original design
Ethics board's ruling that Engineer B's method of obtaining employment was not improper
New owner's commissioning of Engineer B to inspect and assess the facility following identification of alleged design inadequacies
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Mechanical and Electrical Engineering', 'engagement_type': 'Sub-consultant to prime PE', 'complaint_filer': True}
Provided mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project as a sub-consultant to the prime PE; was fully paid; years later became subject of a post-occupancy inspection report identifying design inadequacies in hot water and heating equipment sizing; filed a complaint with the state registration board against Engineer B alleging improper, non-objective, and self-serving conduct.
{'type': 'complaint_filer_against', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'City Wiring Inspector'}
{'type': 'sub-consultant_to', 'target': 'Prime Professional Engineer'}
{'type': 'subject_of_review_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
Original MEP Design Engineer Subject to Post-Occupancy Critique
Engineer A was fully paid for his services
Professional Dignity Applied to Engineer A Interest in Review Notification
Engineer A's interest in notification before Engineer B reviewed original MEP designs
Independent Engineering Review as Client and Public Interest Instrument Principle
Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility Principle
Engineer A's professional dignity interest in being notified of and having an opportunity to respond to a review of original design work was acknowledged as a legitimate concern underlying Section 12(a)'s knowledge requirement, but this interest was outweighed by the termination of Engineer A's connection to the project and the client's interest in independent review.
Professional dignity supports the knowledge requirement's purpose of enabling the prior engineer to provide context, but does not extend to shielding the prior engineer from adverse findings or preventing client-commissioned independent review after the engagement has concluded.
it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility
Professional Dignity Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B Critique
Engineer B's adverse findings about hot water and heating equipment sizing
Professional dignity protects engineers from unjust reputational attacks; however, technically grounded adverse findings about prior work — even when they reflect unfavorably on the original designer — do not constitute a dignity violation when they are the product of objective professional assessment
Engineer A Connection Terminated Years Prior to Review
From the time Engineer A's connection was terminated (years before the review) through the ethics board's analysis
it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
Prior Engineer Connection Terminated Enabling Successor Review State
Engineer A's professional relationship with the facility project
Not terminated during the analysis period; remains the operative factual condition
We do not need at this point, therefore, to consider whether the work of Engineer B was for the same client
Formal termination of Engineer A's connection with the project some years before Engineer B's engagement
Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Satisfied Joint Wiring Inspection
Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings; the joint inspection found no wiring defects, and Engineer B's subsequent adverse findings on heating equipment were based on further study after the joint inspection.
Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion
Before issuing adverse findings on the facility's engineering systems
The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
Engineer B Competitive Self-Interest Contamination Risk in Criticism
From Engineer B's report recommending equipment upgrade through registration board review
Competitor Bid Safety Protest with Self-Interest Contamination Risk State
Engineer B's potential self-interest in recommending higher-capacity equipment installation, which would generate additional engineering work
Registration board determination on whether self-interest contaminated Engineer B's assessment (pending)
Engineer B's recommendation for installation of higher-capacity equipment following identification of alleged design inadequacies
Engineer B Joint Inspection Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion
Before issuing findings about Engineer A's original designs, Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector; the joint inspection did not reveal problems with the wiring, while Engineer B's subsequent report identified inadequacies in the heating equipment sizing.
Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer)
Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to consult available evidence — including participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical findings about Engineer A's original MEP designs, ensuring the adverse opinion was grounded in shared evidentiary review.
Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings
Prior to issuing the inspection report containing adverse findings about Engineer A's original designs
On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
Engineer B Joint Wiring Inspection Participation Adverse Opinion Grounding
Engineer B was retained by the new owner to inspect the facility; a joint wiring inspection was conducted with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector at the owner's request before Engineer B issued findings on the wiring.
Joint Inspection Participation Adverse Opinion Epistemic Grounding Obligation
Before issuing adverse technical findings on the wiring systems
Engineer B Review Conducted With Engineer A's Knowledge
From the time Engineer B was retained through the ethics board's analysis
Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
Engineer B's review engagement and Engineer A's awareness of it
Ethics board resolution affirming Engineer B's conduct was ethical
New owner retaining Engineer B to conduct an engineering inspection of the facility, with Engineer A's knowledge
Objectivity Applied to Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection
Engineer B's technical evaluation of Engineer A's original MEP designs
Engineer B conducted the post-occupancy inspection and review of Engineer A's MEP designs based on objective technical assessment — participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector — without evidence of bias, malicious intent, or self-serving motivation, thereby satisfying the objectivity obligation in forensic and inspection contexts.
Objectivity in post-occupancy inspection requires the reviewing engineer to base conclusions on technical evidence gathered through appropriate methods (including joint inspection), without allowing competitive or personal motivations to distort findings.
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose Limitation Applied to Engineer A Complaint
Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B before the state registration board
Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B misused Section 12(a) as a shield against adverse technical findings rather than invoking it for its legitimate purpose of enabling the prior engineer to provide contextual explanation to improve the quality of the review.
The knowledge requirement exists to improve review quality for the client's benefit, not to protect the prior engineer from adverse findings; Engineer A's invocation of it to suppress Engineer B's adverse conclusions was contrary to the requirement's purpose.
Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose Limitation Principle
The purpose-limitation principle resolved the tension by clarifying that adverse findings do not trigger the knowledge requirement's protections, which exist solely for contextual completeness.
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked Against Engineer A Complaint
Engineer A's formal complaint against Engineer B before the state registration board
Engineer A's filing of a formal complaint against Engineer B with the state registration board — after Engineer B's legitimate inspection found deficiencies in Engineer A's original MEP designs — constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation and practice through the weaponization of the regulatory complaint process.
Using the professional regulatory complaint system to suppress legitimate adverse findings about one's own prior work, where the reviewing engineer acted in good faith and without malicious intent, is itself a form of malicious or false attempt to injure the reviewing engineer's professional standing.
The Engineer will not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer
Engineer A Reputational Harm from Predecessor Design Criticism
Engineer A's professional reputation and standing, implicated by Engineer B's report identifying design inadequacies
Engineer B's report concluding there were design inadequacies in Engineer A's original work
Engineer B Report Alleging Design Inadequacies in Heating Equipment Sizing
From filing of Engineer B's report through registration board complaint and ethical review
Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner
Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
Engineer B's report on the plumbing and heating systems of the housing facility
Engineer B's further study of plumbing and heating systems following owner's complaint
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Applied to Post-Completion Review Context
Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection of Engineer A's completed MEP designs
New owner's right to independent inspection
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B obtained employment 'by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge', invoking the principle that reviewing engineers must notify the incumbent before issuing adverse findings; however, Engineer A's status as 'incumbent' was effectively extinguished seven years after project completion and full payment
The incumbent notification principle applies to active competitive review situations; where the original engineer's engagement is long-completed and fully paid, the 'incumbent' status has lapsed and the notification obligation is significantly attenuated or inapplicable — particularly where a joint inspection was conducted with Engineer A's participation
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
Completeness Principle Applied to Engineer B Report Assessment
Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection report filed with the new facility owner
Client interest in cost-effective remediation
Engineer B commercial interest in expanded scope
Engineer A alleged Engineer B's report did not include all pertinent information; however, the report's structure — finding no plumbing problem while identifying heating inadequacies — demonstrates completeness by reporting both favorable and unfavorable findings about Engineer A's prior work
The completeness principle requires that advisory reports include all material findings; Engineer B's differentiated treatment of plumbing (adequate) and heating (inadequate) suggests the report was complete rather than selectively adverse
Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
Engineer A Original Design Completion and Payment State
From project completion and occupancy (approximately 11 years before complaint) through the present dispute
The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services
Engineer A's engagement for mechanical and electrical engineering services on the housing project
Not terminated — post-engagement state persists with continuing professional obligations
Project completion, occupancy, and full payment to Engineer A
Engineer A Registration Board Complaint Against Engineer B
From filing of complaint through registration board determination
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
Self-Serving Criticism Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer State
Engineer A's formal complaint to the state engineering registration board against Engineer B
Engineer B's report identifying design inadequacies in Engineer A's original work
Engineer A Self-Serving Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer
From filing of Engineer A's complaint through ethics board resolution
Engineer A's formal complaint against Engineer B with the professional registration board
Ethics board's ruling that Engineer B acted ethically
Engineer B's report finding that changes were needed in equipment originally specified by Engineer A
Engineer B Terminated-Connection Peer Review Notification Exemption Recognition
Engineer A's sub-consultant engagement for MEP design had been fully completed and paid years before Engineer B was retained; Engineer A alleged Engineer B obtained employment by a 'questionable method' of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Incumbent Notification Permissibility Obligation
Engineer B was not obligated to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection because Engineer A's connection with the project had been terminated years earlier upon full payment and project completion, satisfying the termination exception in Section 12(a).
At the time Engineer B accepted and commenced the post-occupancy inspection engagement
unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
Improper Complaint Filing By Engineer A Against Engineer B
Engineer A filed a board complaint against Engineer B for conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing a technically grounded report — conduct that does not constitute professional misconduct — thereby weaponizing the regulatory system to protect personal reputation from legitimate critique
Filing a board complaint against an engineer for conducting a legitimate post-occupancy inspection and issuing a balanced technical report is itself an ethics violation; the complaint is motivated by reputational self-protection rather than genuine concern about professional misconduct
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
Joint Wiring Inspection Revealing No Defects
From joint inspection through Engineer B's subsequent plumbing/heating report
Joint inspection concluded with no defects found; focus shifted to plumbing and heating
New owner's complaint about wiring problems, prompting joint inspection by Engineer A, Engineer B, and city wiring inspector
Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer B In Balanced Report
Post-occupancy inspection of plumbing and heating systems in the housing facility
Objectivity in post-occupancy inspection requires reporting both adequacies and inadequacies found; Engineer B's differentiated findings (plumbing adequate, heating equipment undersized) are consistent with objective professional assessment
Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Against Engineer B
Engineer A's formal complaint to the state registration board against Engineer B was improper because Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection and adverse findings constituted technically permissible and ethically compliant conduct; filing the complaint weaponized the regulatory system against a colleague for conduct that was not an ethics or licensure violation.
Where a reviewing engineer's conduct is technically permissible — legitimately commissioned, conducted without malicious intent, and resulting in good-faith adverse findings — a formal complaint against that engineer is itself an ethics violation by the complaining engineer.
Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Against Engineer B
Engineer B's conclusion that original equipment sizing was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that may differ from Engineer A's original design decisions; Engineer A's regulatory complaint characterized this honest disagreement as 'misconduct' and 'self-serving' conduct.
Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from retaliating against Engineer B through a formal registration board complaint and misconduct allegations when Engineer B's adverse findings about heating equipment sizing represented a legitimate technical disagreement rather than a malicious or false critique.
Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Violated By Engineer A Complaint
Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection commissioned by the new facility owner
Engineer A's right to respond to adverse findings
Engineer A's board complaint against Engineer B constitutes an attempt to obstruct a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by characterizing the reviewer's adverse findings as 'misconduct', thereby discouraging independent technical scrutiny of prior engineering work
The new owner's right to commission an independent inspection of the facility's systems is a legitimate exercise of client autonomy; Engineer A's attempt to suppress adverse findings through a board complaint obstructs this legitimate review process
The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring.
Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Applied to Engineer B Findings
Engineer B's adverse findings regarding Engineer A's MEP designs
Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment, reached after a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector, did not constitute a malicious or false attempt to injure Engineer A's professional reputation because there was no showing of malicious intent and adverse findings are a normal output of legitimate independent review.
Adverse technical findings reached in good faith after a legitimately commissioned review do not per se constitute malicious reputation injury under Section 12; malicious intent must be separately established and cannot be inferred from the mere existence of adverse conclusions.
Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Principle
Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility.
Engineer A Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Engineer B
Engineer A filed a board complaint alleging Engineer B acted improperly, was not objective, omitted pertinent information, and obtained employment by criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge; none of these allegations rose to the level of an actual ethics violation.
Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Technically Compliant Peer Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B when Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection, participating in a joint review, and issuing an honest technical report — did not constitute an actual ethics or licensure violation.
Engineer A Improper Complaint Filing Against Engineer B Technically Compliant Conduct
The registration board complaint alleged Engineer B acted improperly, was not objective, omitted pertinent information, and obtained employment by a questionable method; all of these characterizations misrepresent technically compliant professional conduct as misconduct.
Engineer A violated the prohibition on filing improper complaints by initiating a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B for conduct — post-occupancy inspection, joint wiring review participation, and honest technical reporting — that did not rise to the level of an actual ethics or licensure violation, thereby weaponizing the regulatory system against a colleague for technically permissible conduct.
Upon filing the registration board complaint
Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Via Complaint Filing
Engineer A's board complaint against Engineer B constitutes an attempt to obstruct a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by characterizing technically permissible review conduct as professional misconduct.
Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from obstructing Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by filing a registration board complaint that characterized the review as improper 'misconduct', recognizing that peer review serves the public interest and that Engineer A's professional obligation to public welfare supersedes any personal interest in avoiding scrutiny of prior work.
Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Violated by Complaint Filing
Engineer A, knowing that Engineer B had been retained to inspect the facility and that this would entail review of original designs, filed a formal complaint with the state registration board after Engineer B's report found inadequacies in Engineer A's originally specified equipment.
Engineer A (Original MEP Design Engineer Subject to Post-Occupancy Critique)
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from obstructing Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by filing a registration board complaint characterizing Engineer B's honest technical findings as misconduct; Engineer A's complaint constituted an attempt to suppress legitimate peer review through regulatory weaponization.
After Engineer B issued the post-occupancy inspection report
Engineer B Objective and Complete Reporting Balanced Findings
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information; however, the report demonstrated objectivity by finding no problem with plumbing while identifying heating inadequacies.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to be objective and complete in the inspection report, including both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (heating equipment sizing inadequacies), without selective omission of pertinent information.
At the time of filing the inspection report with the new owner
Engineer B Peer Review Prohibition Interpretation Client Public Interest Non-Subordination
The new facility owner retained Engineer B to inspect the building's systems and resolve current problems; Engineer A argued that Engineer B's review was improper under Section 12(a).
Peer Review Prohibition Interpretation Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination Obligation
Engineer B was ethically entitled to proceed with the post-occupancy inspection, and the BER was obligated to recognize that interpreting Section 12(a) to prohibit such review would be contrary to the interests of the client and the public, and would subject the profession to justifiable criticism for placing member interests above public welfare.
At the time of the inspection engagement and at the time of ethics adjudication
Engineer B Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Notification Permissibility
Engineer A alleged Engineer B obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge; however, Engineer A had been fully paid and the project completed seven years prior, with ownership having since changed.
Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection, because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and terminated through full payment years prior to the review; the NSPE III.8.a notification requirement does not apply to engineers whose connection with the work has been terminated.
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Non-Suppression
Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection found no problem with the plumbing design but identified inadequacies in the heating equipment originally specified by Engineer A; Engineer A alleged the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information.
Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Non-Suppression Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to report all material findings honestly and completely to the new facility owner — including findings that identified inadequacies in Engineer A's original heating equipment specifications — without suppressing adverse conclusions out of collegial deference to Engineer A.
Engineer B's report demonstrated objectivity by finding no problem with the plumbing design while identifying inadequacies in the heating equipment
At the time of preparing and submitting the post-occupancy inspection report
Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Applied to Engineer A Knowledge of Engineer B Retention
Engineer A's response to Engineer B's legitimate post-occupancy inspection and review
Engineer A, who knew that Engineer B had been retained by the new owner to inspect the facility and that this review would necessarily entail evaluation of the original designs, had an obligation not to obstruct that review — and Engineer A's subsequent complaint against Engineer B constituted an attempt to obstruct or penalize the legitimate review after the fact.
Knowledge that a peer review is underway, combined with the obligation not to obstruct it, extends to refraining from using regulatory complaints to penalize the reviewing engineer for adverse findings reached in good faith.
Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Violated
Engineer A filed a registration board complaint against Engineer B, alleging Engineer B's report was 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A' and that Engineer B obtained employment by a 'questionable method' — after Engineer B's legitimate inspection found deficiencies in Engineer A's original MEP designs.
Engineer A (Professional Reputation Complaint Filing Engineer)
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from retaliating against Engineer B through a formal registration board complaint after Engineer B's honest professional judgment found inadequacies in Engineer A's original equipment specifications, recognizing that Engineer B's adverse findings represented a legitimate technical disagreement rather than malicious or false conduct.
After Engineer B issued the post-occupancy inspection report finding inadequacies in Engineer A's original designs
Engineer B Honest Disagreement Permissibility Heating Equipment Sizing Conclusion
Engineer A alleged Engineer B's report was not objective; however, Engineer B's adverse finding on heating equipment sizing represents an honest professional judgment based on further study, not a fabricated or malicious critique.
Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that may differ from Engineer A's original design decisions; this honest technical disagreement does not constitute an ethics violation and should be recognized as such by the registration board.
At the time Engineer B issued the inspection report
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Plumbing Heating Report
After the joint wiring inspection revealed no defects, the owner advised Engineer B of complaints about plumbing and heating systems; Engineer B conducted further study and issued a report finding no plumbing problem but identifying heating equipment sizing inadequacies.
Engineer B was obligated to report all material findings honestly and completely to the new owner, including the conclusion that there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of hot water and heating equipment, without suppressing adverse findings out of collegial deference to Engineer A.
Upon completion of further study of plumbing and heating systems
Honest Disagreement Permissibility Applied to Engineer B Findings
Engineer A's original MEP design decisions regarding hot water and heating equipment sizing
Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that differs from Engineer A's original design decisions — a permissible honest disagreement among qualified engineers, not misconduct
The fact that Engineer B reached different conclusions about equipment adequacy than Engineer A's original design reflects does not constitute an ethics violation; engineering judgment about equipment sizing admits of honest professional disagreement
concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
Available Evidence Consultation Satisfied By Joint Wiring Inspection
Client interest in expeditious reporting
Engineer A's right to participate in review of his own work
Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings, and conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems — demonstrating reasonable evidence consultation before rendering adverse technical opinions
The joint wiring inspection gave Engineer A direct participation in the evidence-gathering process for that system; the further study of plumbing and heating demonstrates diligent evidence review before adverse conclusions were drawn
Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Forensic Opinion
Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Applied to Engineer B Adverse Findings
Engineer B's adverse technical findings regarding Engineer A's MEP equipment specifications
Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment represented a legitimate professional disagreement about the adequacy of the original MEP designs — a normal feature of engineering practice that does not constitute an ethics violation merely because it differs from Engineer A's original professional judgment.
The fact that Engineer B reached different conclusions about the adequacy of the original equipment specifications than Engineer A had when designing them is a permissible professional disagreement, not evidence of malicious intent or ethics violation.
Independent Engineering Review as Client and Public Interest Instrument Applied to Owner Retention of Engineer B
New facility owner's commissioning of Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection
The new facility owner's retention of Engineer B to inspect the building's systems and review original designs served both the owner's interest in resolving current facility problems and the broader public interest in engineering quality; any interpretation of Section 12 that would bar such review would harm client and public interests and expose the profession to justifiable criticism.
Ethics codes governing peer review must be interpreted to preserve rather than restrict the client's ability to obtain independent engineering evaluation of prior work, particularly when current facility problems require resolution.
Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves.
Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility Invoked by Engineer B Review of Engineer A Work
Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection and review of Engineer A's original MEP designs
Engineer B's review of Engineer A's MEP designs was ethically permissible because Engineer A's connection to the project had been terminated years earlier and full payment had been received, extinguishing any notification obligation under Section 12(a).
The termination of Engineer A's connection to the project — completed years before the review, with full payment received — meant that Section 12(a)'s knowledge requirement did not apply, and Engineer B could proceed with the review without notifying Engineer A.
We do not need at this point, therefore, to consider whether the work of Engineer B was for the same client.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Original MEP design', 'connection_to_project': 'Terminated years prior to review', 'complaint_outcome': 'Complaint found without ethical merit'}
Engineer A, whose original MEP designs were reviewed and found deficient by Engineer B, filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging Engineer B acted improperly. Engineer A had prior knowledge that Engineer B had been retained for the inspection. The ethics board found the complaint without merit, affirming that legitimate peer review conclusions do not constitute malicious disparagement.
{'type': 'complaint_filed_with', 'target': 'State Registration Board'}
{'type': 'filed_complaint_against', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'original_designer_reviewed_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
Professional Reputation Complaint Filing Engineer
Engineer A filed a complaint with the state registration board
Engineer B Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report was self-serving and damaged Engineer A's professional reputation; Engineer B had concluded that changes were needed in the heating equipment originally specified by Engineer A.
Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer) and BER
Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Prerequisite Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment did not constitute a violation of Section 12's prohibition on reputation injury, because there was no showing of malicious or false intent; the BER was obligated to recognize that adverse technical findings alone are insufficient to establish a reputation-injury violation.
At the time of issuing the inspection report and at the time of ethics adjudication
Engineer B Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation
Engineer B was retained by the new facility owner to conduct a post-occupancy inspection of a large housing project originally designed by Engineer A as MEP sub-consultant; Engineer A's connection had been terminated years earlier upon full payment and project completion.
Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to understand and apply Section 12(a)'s notification requirement according to its actual purpose — enabling the original engineer to submit technical explanations — rather than as a prohibition on review, and to proceed with the inspection consistent with that purpose-limited reading given Engineer A's terminated connection.
At the time of accepting and conducting the post-occupancy inspection engagement
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Building systems inspection and evaluation', 'report_author': True, 'retained_by': 'New Facility Owner'}
Retained by the new facility owner to inspect the building's systems; participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector; conducted a further study of plumbing and heating systems; filed a report finding no plumbing design problem but identifying design inadequacies in hot water and heating equipment sizing, recommending higher-capacity equipment.
{'type': 'reviewer_of_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'subject_of_complaint_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
the new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility