ProEthica Case 171 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.258691
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Agent-Trustee-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard-Instance
type: Agent-TrusteeLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (accumulated precedent)
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norm: Engineer as Faithful Agent and Trustee with Duties of Loyalty, Good Faith, and Disclosure
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.). That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith. An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
textreferences: Again, Engineer A owes duties of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure to the employer for which the breach constitutes a violation of the Code.
textreferences: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.). That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith. An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Provides the interpretive framework for understanding the scope of Engineer A's obligations to employer Engineer B while still employed, including the duty to disclose competitive promotional activities
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.268250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

BER-Case-77-11
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 77-11
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 77-11, the Board ruled that four engineers who founded a new firm did not violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former clients of their previous employer, but were in violation of the Code with regard to projects for which they had particular knowledge while working for their former employer.
textreferences: Although at first glance the facts in Case 77-11 appear to be quite similar to the instant case, they are distinguishable on two very important points
textreferences: As we noted in Case 77-11, 'We have often held that (the Code) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.'
textreferences: In BER Case 77-11, the Board ruled that four engineers who founded a new firm did not violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former clients of their previous employer, but were in violation of the Code with regard to projects for which they had particular knowledge while working for their former employer.
textreferences: those were the facts of Case 77-11 and that case remains a proper interpretation of the Code.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in the instant case analysis
usedincontext: Cited as precedent distinguishing permissible post-employment client solicitation (after severing ties) from impermissible solicitation of current clients while still employed; establishes that engineers who leave a firm may generally seek work from former clients but not exploit specialized knowledge gained during employment
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.266766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

BER Case 77-11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

BER Case 77-11 Current-Client vs Former-Client Employed vs Departed Distinguishability BER-82
type: BERCase77-11Current-Clientvs.Former-ClientFactualDistinguishabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly distinguished BER Case 77-11 from the instant case on two grounds, preserving the earlier precedent's validity while limiting its scope to its specific factual predicate.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Ethics evaluators and engineers invoking BER Case 77-11 as precedent
constraintclass: BER Case 77-11 Current-Client vs. Former-Client Factual Distinguishability Constraint
constraintstatement: BER Case 77-11's permissive holding regarding post-departure solicitation of former clients is constrained in its application by a two-factor distinguishing test: (1) whether the clients solicited are current or former clients of the employer, and (2) whether the engineer is still employed or has fully departed — with the BER Case 82-5 holding establishing that where either factor differs from the BER Case 77-11 facts (former clients; fully departed engineers), the permissive holding does not apply.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case 77-11; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: Although at first glance the facts in Case 77-11 appear to be quite similar to the instant case, they are distinguishable on two very important points: (l) In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them. (2) Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
temporalscope: Applicable to all future ethics analyses invoking BER Case 77-11 as precedent
textreferences: Although at first glance the facts in Case 77-11 appear to be quite similar to the instant case, they are distinguishable on two very important points: (l) In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them. (2) Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
textreferences: those were the facts of Case 77-11 and that case remains a proper interpretation of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.295517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

BER Case 77-11 Precedent Distinguishing
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the Board's deliberation on the instant case
affectedparties: Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Although at first glance the facts in Case 77-11 appear to be quite similar to the instant case, they are distinguishable on two very important points
stateclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State
subject: The Board's analysis distinguishing the instant case from BER Case 77-11
terminatedby: Board's conclusion that two key distinctions (current vs. former clients; employed vs. departed status) render Case 77-11 inapplicable to the instant facts
textreferences: Although at first glance the facts in Case 77-11 appear to be quite similar to the instant case, they are distinguishable on two very important points
textreferences: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients
textreferences: In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B
triggeringevent: Apparent factual similarity between the instant case and BER Case 77-11 requiring differentiation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.269883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

BER Case 77-11 ruling before current case analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In BER Case 77-11, the Board ruled that four engineers who founded a new firm did not violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former clients of their previous employer... the instant case.
from entity text: BER Case 77-11 ruling
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current case analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current case analysis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Brochure Distribution During Notice Period
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Employer/Principal Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Clients might select Engineer B's firm based on Engineer A's listed presence, an expectation that could not be fulfilled
foreseen unintended effects: Prospective clients would be misled into believing Engineer A would be available as a key employee on future projects
guided by principle text: Avoidance of material misrepresentation
guided by principle text: Honesty and truthfulness in professional representations
guided by principle text: Protection of public and client trust
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Promote the firm to prospective clients and secure future business by presenting the firm's qualifications and key personnel
requires capability text: Ability to supplement brochure representations with verbal disclosures during client negotiations
requires capability text: Knowledge of professional obligations regarding promotional material accuracy
requires capability text: Managerial judgment about firm promotional practices
temporal marker: During interim employment period, post-notice but pre-termination
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid statements likely to create unjustified expectations (Section III.3.a.)
violates obligation text: Obligation to inform prospective clients during negotiations of Engineer A's pending termination
violates obligation text: Prohibition on misrepresenting pertinent facts in promotional materials (Section II.5.a.)
within competence: true
comment: During the interim period after issuing Engineer A's termination notice but before actual termination, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee to prospective clients without disclosing Engineer A's pending departure. This constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts about firm personnel.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Brochure Distribution During Notice Period (Action 3) → Misrepresentation Of Staff Status (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: During the interim period after issuing Engineer A's termination notice but before actual termination, Engineer B distributed promotional brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee, resulting in misrepresentation of Engineer A's staff status to clients and the public
cause: Brochure Distribution During Notice Period (Action 3)
counterfactual: Had Engineer B updated or suspended brochure distribution upon issuing the termination notice, no misrepresentation of Engineer A's status would have occurred during this period
effect: Misrepresentation Of Staff Status (Event 4)
necessary factors: Brochures containing Engineer A's name and status as a key employee
necessary factors: Engineer B's decision to continue distributing brochures during the notice period
necessary factors: Third-party recipients (clients, public) receiving materially false information about staffing
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Distribution of brochures listing a soon-to-be-terminated employee as current key staff, during the notice period, was sufficient to constitute misrepresentation regardless of intent
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Case 171 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 6
total elements: 11
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

CausalLink_Brochure Distribution During N
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

CausalLink_Current Client Solicitation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

CausalLink_Post-Termination Brochure Cont
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

CausalLink_Proprietary Knowledge Use Deci
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

CausalLink_Termination Notice Issuance
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Client Relationship Access Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_List_Proprietary_Information_Constraint
activates constraint: Confidential_Information_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: Duty_Not_To_Exploit_Employer_Resources_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A possesses the means to solicit Engineer B's clients; the opportunity structure for ethical violation is established; Engineer B's failure to restrict access post-notice creates a foreseeable risk
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Convert_Client_Access_To_Personal_Competitive_Advantage
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Should_Consider_Restricting_Sensitive_Access_Post_Notice
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Throughout interim employment period following November 15, 1982
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: low
comment: As a consequence of Engineer A's continued employment and client-facing role during the notice period, Engineer A retains access to Engineer B's current client relationships, contact information, and proprietary knowledge about client needs. This access becomes the enabling condition for subsequent solicitation.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Compounded Misrepresentation Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: Immediate_Correction_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Knowing_Misrepresentation_Prohibition_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Honesty_Constraint
causes state change: What was previously a negligent misrepresentation becomes a knowing deception; Engineer B's ethical culpability escalates significantly; the ongoing distribution constitutes a continuous violation rather than a one-time error; clients continue to be misled with Engineer B's full awareness
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Ensure_All_Future_Marketing_Accurately_Reflects_Current_Staff
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Immediately_Destroy_Or_Correct_All_Remaining_Brochures
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Notify_Clients_Who_Received_Misleading_Materials
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After formal termination of Engineer A
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: high
comment: After Engineer A's formal termination, Engineer B's continued use of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee transforms from a negligent misrepresentation into a knowing and ongoing deception. The post-termination continuation of the same misrepresentation represents a qualitatively more serious ethical violation.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 302
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to notify clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start a firm and would appreciate being considered for work while still in the employ of Engineer B.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.4
cited provision2: III.7
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's solicitation was unethical, Engineer A compounded the violation by failing to disclose to Engineer B that such solicitation was actively underway during the notice period. The faithful agent duty encompasses not merely the obligation to refrain from adverse competitive acts but also an affirmative duty of transparency toward the employer during the continuation of the employment relationship. By soliciting Engineer B's current clients covertly — without informing Engineer B — Engineer A deprived Engineer B of the opportunity to take protective measures, reassign client relationships, or accelerate the transition timeline. This non-disclosure constitutes an independent breach of the faithful agent and trustee obligation under Section I.4, separate from and in addition to the solicitation itself. The Board's conclusion focused on the act of solicitation but did not address whether the covert character of that solicitation independently aggravated the ethical violation. It did: the combination of active solicitation and deliberate concealment from the employer represents a more serious departure from professional loyalty than either element alone.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.4
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's solicitation was unethical does not adequately account for the asymmetry introduced by the employer-initiated nature of the termination. When Engineer B chose to terminate Engineer A for lack of work — a business decision made unilaterally by Engineer B — Engineer B effectively signaled that the employment relationship was no longer mutually beneficial and that Engineer A's continued loyalty would yield no reciprocal security. While the at-will employment symmetry principle invoked by Engineer A cannot serve as a blanket ethical license to solicit current clients during the notice period, it does carry moral weight as a mitigating factor in assessing the severity of the violation. The Board should have distinguished between cases where an employee voluntarily resigns to compete and cases where an employer initiates termination: in the latter scenario, the employee's pre-departure competitive positioning, while still ethically constrained by the faithful agent duty, is less culpable because the employee is responding to an involuntary displacement rather than opportunistically exploiting the employer's trust. The Board's failure to draw this distinction leaves the ethical standard underspecified for a common and practically important category of departure.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.4.a
cited provision2: III.7
cited provision3: I.4
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: Engineer A's use of client relationships and project-specific knowledge acquired exclusively through employment with Engineer B to identify and target those specific clients for solicitation constitutes an independent ethical dimension that the Board did not separately address. Even if one were to accept the at-will employment symmetry argument as partially mitigating the solicitation's impropriety, the use of insider knowledge — including awareness of which clients had ongoing needs, pending projects, and existing dissatisfactions — to gain a competitive advantage over Engineer B goes beyond mere professional mobility. Section III.4.a requires consent of all interested parties before promoting new employment arrangements using information obtained in a professional capacity, and the specialized knowledge Engineer A possessed about Engineer B's clients was obtained solely in that capacity. The Board's analysis treated the solicitation as a unitary act, but the ethical analysis should have bifurcated it: the decision to solicit is one question, and the use of confidential client intelligence to execute that solicitation is a separate and potentially more serious question. Post-departure solicitation of former clients using generally known contact information may be permissible; pre-departure solicitation using privileged insider knowledge of client needs and vulnerabilities is not, and the Board should have articulated this distinction explicitly.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: II.5.a
cited provision2: III.3.a
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conditional permissibility ruling on Engineer B's notice-period brochure distribution — permissible only if Engineer B orally disclosed Engineer A's pending termination during active negotiations — sets a standard that is both underprotective of prospective clients and inconsistent with the proactive marketing material accuracy obligation that the Board itself recognized in other contexts. Oral disclosure during negotiations is inherently unreliable: it depends on the negotiating engineer's memory, candor, and judgment about when the disclosure is 'pertinent,' and it leaves no documentary record that the disclosure was made. A prospective client who receives a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee and then hears a verbal qualification during a meeting may not fully appreciate the significance of that qualification, particularly if the brochure is left behind as a reference document. The Board should have required, at minimum, that Engineer B accompany each brochure distribution with a written addendum or errata sheet disclosing Engineer A's pending departure, rather than accepting oral disclosure as sufficient. The errata sheet mechanism is low-cost, creates a verifiable record, and ensures that the written document the client retains accurately reflects the firm's actual personnel situation. The Board's failure to require written correction during the notice period creates an internal inconsistency: it holds Engineer B to an absolute prohibition after actual termination but accepts a merely verbal correction standard during the notice period, even though the misrepresentation risk to prospective clients is substantially similar in both phases.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.5.a
cited provision2: III.3.a
cited provision3: I.4
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conditional permissibility ruling implicitly treats the notice period as a morally neutral interval during which Engineer B's business interests in using existing marketing materials are balanced against prospective clients' interests in accurate information. However, from a virtue ethics perspective, a firm principal who knowingly distributes a brochure listing a departing employee as a 'key employee' — even with oral qualification — is not demonstrating the professional virtue of honesty but rather managing a misrepresentation at the minimum acceptable threshold. The character standard expected of a firm principal goes beyond technical compliance with a disclosure requirement: it demands that the principal take affirmative steps to ensure that the overall impression conveyed to prospective clients is accurate. A brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, combined with a verbal note that Engineer A 'may be leaving,' does not convey an accurate overall impression — it conveys a firm with a key employee who has some uncertainty about tenure, which is materially different from a firm that has already issued a termination notice to that employee. The Board's conditional permissibility ruling is legally defensible as a minimum ethical floor but does not represent the full character standard the profession should aspire to.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a
cited provision2: III.3.a
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's absolute prohibition on post-termination brochure distribution listing Engineer A as a key employee is well-founded, but the Board did not address whether Engineer A bears any independent ethical responsibility for the misrepresentation that Engineer B's continued brochure use perpetuates. Once Engineer A's actual termination occurred, Engineer A's professional identity and credentials were being actively misrepresented to prospective clients without Engineer A's consent and potentially to Engineer A's competitive detriment — prospective clients might assume Engineer A remained affiliated with Engineer B's firm and decline to engage Engineer A's new firm. Under Section II.5.a, engineers shall not permit misrepresentation of their qualifications or associations. This provision imposes an affirmative obligation on Engineer A to take steps to correct the misrepresentation once Engineer A became aware that Engineer B was continuing to distribute brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee. Engineer A should have formally notified Engineer B in writing to cease using the brochure and, if Engineer B failed to comply, should have considered notifying affected prospective clients directly. The Board's analysis focused entirely on Engineer B's obligation to correct the brochure but left Engineer A's reciprocal obligation to protect the accuracy of Engineer A's own professional representations unaddressed.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.5.a
cited provision2: III.3.a
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: The Board's absolute prohibition on post-termination brochure distribution raises but does not resolve the question of whether the prohibition's force depends on the materiality of the listed employee's role to prospective clients' contracting decisions. The Board's ruling was premised on Engineer A being listed as a 'key employee,' a designation that is inherently material to a prospective client evaluating whether to engage the firm. However, the Board did not articulate whether the same absolute prohibition would apply if Engineer A had been listed as a peripheral or non-key employee whose departure would be unlikely to influence a prospective client's decision. The dual-element misrepresentation test — requiring both a misrepresentation of pertinent fact and a purpose to deceive — suggests that the ethical severity of post-termination brochure use should scale with the materiality of the departed employee's listed role. A brochure listing a departed key employee as currently affiliated is a categorical misrepresentation of a fact that is directly relevant to client decision-making and therefore warrants absolute prohibition. A brochure listing a departed peripheral employee might constitute a technical inaccuracy without rising to the level of a pertinent misrepresentation, depending on the circumstances. The Board's failure to articulate this materiality threshold leaves the standard potentially over-inclusive in low-stakes cases and under-theorized in high-stakes ones.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 303
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee provided Engineer B apprised the prospective client during the negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's failure to disclose to Engineer B that Engineer A was actively soliciting Engineer B's current clients during the notice period constitutes an independent breach of the faithful agent duty, separate from and compounding the ethical violation of the solicitation itself. The duty to act as a faithful agent under Section I.4 is not merely a duty to refrain from harmful acts but also an affirmative duty of candor toward one's employer. By conducting covert solicitation without disclosure, Engineer A deprived Engineer B of the opportunity to take protective measures, accelerate the termination, or negotiate a transition arrangement. The concealment transforms what might otherwise be a borderline competitive act into a deliberate act of bad faith. Even if one were to argue that the solicitation itself occupied a gray area given the employer-initiated termination, the non-disclosure removes any ambiguity: Engineer A was simultaneously performing work for Engineer B while secretly redirecting Engineer B's client relationships to a competing venture, without Engineer B's knowledge or consent. This dual conduct — active employment combined with covert competitive solicitation — is precisely what Section III.4.a is designed to prohibit.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The fact that Engineer B initiated the termination rather than Engineer A voluntarily resigning does not materially alter the ethical calculus governing Engineer A's pre-departure client solicitation, and the Board was correct not to establish a distinct standard for employer-initiated departures. While the at-will employment symmetry principle — the notion that because Engineer B could terminate Engineer A at will, Engineer A should be free to compete immediately upon receiving notice — has intuitive appeal, it conflates legal entitlement with ethical obligation. The faithful agent duty under Section I.4 is not contingent on the reason for departure; it persists throughout the employment relationship until actual termination. The ethical wrong in Engineer A's conduct is not the decision to compete but the timing and method: soliciting current clients while still drawing compensation and performing work for Engineer B. Engineer B's decision to terminate for lack of work, while perhaps morally relevant as context, does not suspend Engineer A's loyalty obligations during the notice period. To hold otherwise would create a perverse incentive structure in which any employee receiving a termination notice could immediately begin raiding the employer's client base with ethical impunity. The Board's uniform standard appropriately prioritizes the integrity of the employment relationship over the circumstances of its dissolution.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A bears a secondary but real ethical obligation to proactively notify Engineer B's prospective clients that Engineer A's name appearing in Engineer B's brochure is misleading after Engineer A's actual termination. While the Board's third conclusion correctly places primary responsibility for the post-termination brochure misrepresentation on Engineer B, Engineer A is not ethically passive in this situation. Engineer A's professional identity and credentials are being used without consent to attract clients to a firm Engineer A no longer represents. This exploitation harms Engineer A's own professional reputation, potentially associates Engineer A with projects or commitments Engineer A cannot fulfill, and misleads clients who may rely on Engineer A's listed participation as a material factor in selecting Engineer B's firm. Section II.5.a prohibits permitting misrepresentation of one's qualifications or associations, and Engineer A's silence in the face of known misrepresentation arguably constitutes such permission by omission. Engineer A should therefore take affirmative steps — such as directly notifying prospective clients with whom Engineer A has contact, or formally demanding that Engineer B cease distribution — to prevent the continued exploitation of Engineer A's professional identity. Engineer A's failure to do so does not rise to the level of Engineer B's direct ethical violation but represents a meaningful gap in Engineer A's own professional conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.4.a.
cited provision2: I.4.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer A's use of specialized knowledge about Engineer B's clients — knowledge gained exclusively through employment — to target those specific clients for solicitation constitutes an independent ethical concern that the Board did not fully address as a discrete question. The Board acknowledged the specialized knowledge constraint in passing but treated it as a contextual factor rather than a separate violation. However, Section III.4.a requires consent of all interested parties before promoting new employment arrangements using information or relationships developed during current employment. When Engineer A leveraged insider knowledge of Engineer B's client roster, project needs, and relationship dynamics to craft targeted solicitations, Engineer A was using proprietary relational capital that belonged, in a professional sense, to Engineer B's firm. This is categorically different from a departing engineer who, after termination, happens to encounter a former client in the marketplace. The targeted, knowledge-driven nature of the solicitation — made possible only by Engineer A's privileged access — amplifies the ethical violation beyond mere timing. The Board should have addressed this as a separate question, because even if the timing of solicitation were deemed permissible in some hypothetical scenario, the method of leveraging insider client intelligence without consent would remain independently problematic.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection and the Faithful Agent Trustee Duty is real but ultimately resolvable in favor of the loyalty obligation during the active employment period. Client autonomy — the principle that clients have an absolute right to choose their engineer — is a genuine and important value in the NSPE ethical framework, and it is true that Engineer A's solicitation could be framed as merely informing clients of a choice they are entitled to make. However, this framing conflates the clients' right to choose with Engineer A's right to solicit during active employment. Client autonomy does not generate an affirmative obligation on Engineer A's part to inform clients of competitive alternatives while still employed by Engineer B; it merely prohibits Engineer B from contractually preventing clients from switching engineers. The faithful agent duty, by contrast, directly governs Engineer A's conduct during employment and prohibits using the employment relationship as a platform for competitive self-promotion at the employer's expense. After actual termination, the balance shifts: client autonomy then supports Engineer A's right to make the market aware of a new firm, and the loyalty obligation no longer applies. The Board's conclusion correctly reflects this temporal resolution of the tension.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: I.4.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The At-Will Employment Symmetry principle cannot serve as an ethical justification for conduct that violates loyalty obligations, and the Board implicitly but correctly rejected this argument. The symmetry argument holds that because Engineer B could terminate Engineer A at will, Engineer A should be equally free to compete at will from the moment of receiving notice. This reasoning is flawed for two reasons. First, ethical obligations are not merely reciprocal legal entitlements; the faithful agent duty exists independently of whether the employment relationship is at-will. Second, the symmetry argument proves too much: if accepted, it would mean that any employee who receives a termination notice — or even anticipates one — could immediately begin soliciting the employer's clients, using the employer's resources, relationships, and time, without ethical constraint. The Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition under Section III.7 is precisely designed to prevent competitive conduct that, while perhaps not illegal, undermines the professional trust on which engineering practice depends. At-will reciprocity is a legal concept governing the termination of employment; it does not dissolve the ethical obligations that govern conduct during employment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The tension between the Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility principle and the Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation reveals a meaningful gap in the Board's second conclusion. The Board's conditional permissibility ruling — allowing Engineer B to continue distributing the brochure during the notice period provided oral disclosure of Engineer A's pending departure is made during active negotiations — relies on a disclosure mechanism that is inherently incomplete. Oral disclosure during negotiation reaches only those prospective clients who have already entered active discussions with Engineer B; it does not reach prospective clients who receive the brochure but have not yet initiated negotiations, nor does it create a documented record of the disclosure. The Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation, grounded in Sections III.3.a and II.5.a, would seem to require that the written record itself be corrected — through an errata sheet, written addendum, or updated brochure — rather than relying on case-by-case oral qualification. The Board's ruling is pragmatically lenient, acknowledging the logistical difficulty of immediately reprinting brochures, but it sets a lower standard than the proactive accuracy obligation would demand. A more rigorous application of the honesty principle would require Engineer B to issue written corrections accompanying each brochure distribution during the notice period, not merely verbal disclosures during negotiations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The temporal boundary between permissible and impermissible solicitation is indeed ethically unstable when the client relationships and project knowledge enabling post-departure solicitation were acquired exclusively during employment, and the Board's framework does not fully resolve this instability. The Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility principle holds that Engineer A may freely solicit Engineer B's former clients after departure, but this permissibility is premised on a clean temporal break that does not exist in practice. The very knowledge of which clients to contact, what their project needs are, and how to frame a competitive pitch was acquired during employment. The Specialized Knowledge Constraint acknowledges this problem but applies it only conditionally and without specifying how it interacts with the post-departure permissibility rule. A more coherent framework would distinguish between general professional knowledge of client relationships — which Engineer A legitimately carries as part of professional experience — and specific proprietary intelligence about ongoing projects, budgets, and decision-making processes, which should remain subject to a confidentiality constraint even after departure. The Board's binary temporal framework — prohibited before termination, permitted after — is administratively clear but ethically underinclusive, as it does not account for the qualitative nature of the knowledge being deployed in post-departure competition.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A violated a categorical duty of loyalty to Engineer B by soliciting Engineer B's current clients during the notice period, regardless of whether Engineer B initiated the termination and regardless of the absence of a written non-compete agreement. The Kantian categorical imperative requires that one act only according to maxims that could be universalized without contradiction. If every employee who received a termination notice immediately began soliciting the employer's current clients while still employed, the institution of employment — and the trust relationships on which it depends — would be systematically undermined. The faithful agent duty under Section I.4 is precisely such a categorical obligation: it does not admit of exceptions based on the circumstances of departure or the absence of contractual restrictions. The deontological analysis also highlights the wrongness of using the employer's own client relationships — relationships Engineer A accessed only by virtue of employment — as instruments for competitive self-promotion during the employment period. This instrumentalization of the employer's relational assets for Engineer A's benefit, without consent, violates the duty to treat the employer as an end in itself rather than merely as a means to Engineer A's career advancement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: I.4.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's pre-departure solicitation of Engineer B's clients produced net harm across affected parties that outweighed the competitive positioning benefit Engineer A gained. For Engineer B, the harm is direct and concrete: the goodwill embedded in client relationships — built through years of service and investment — was actively eroded by an employee still drawing compensation from the firm. For Engineer B's clients, the harm is subtler but real: clients who received Engineer A's solicitation while Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B were placed in an awkward position, potentially receiving incomplete or strategically framed information about Engineer A's departure circumstances, and were denied the benefit of a fully transparent competitive marketplace. For the engineering profession broadly, the harm is reputational: if departing engineers routinely solicit current employer clients during notice periods, the profession's trustworthiness as a whole is diminished, increasing transaction costs for all clients who must now be more guarded in sharing project information with engineers. Against these harms, the benefit to Engineer A — earlier competitive positioning — is modest and could have been achieved through ethically permissible means by waiting until after actual termination. The consequentialist calculus therefore supports the Board's finding of a violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B did not fully demonstrate the professional virtue of honesty when distributing the brochure during the notice period without proactively disclosing Engineer A's pending termination, and the Board's conditional permissibility ruling captures only the minimum ethical threshold rather than the character standard expected of a firm principal. A person of genuine professional integrity — one who embodies honesty as a character trait rather than merely complying with disclosure rules when directly asked — would not distribute marketing materials known to contain a material inaccuracy without simultaneously and proactively correcting that inaccuracy in writing. The Board's ruling that oral disclosure during active negotiations is sufficient reflects a pragmatic accommodation of business realities, but it does not reflect the virtue of honesty as a positive character disposition. A firm principal who truly values transparency would recognize that prospective clients who receive the brochure but do not yet enter active negotiations are being misled, and would take steps — such as an errata sheet or written addendum — to prevent that misleading impression from forming. The conditional permissibility ruling is therefore better understood as establishing a floor of ethical compliance rather than a ceiling of professional virtue.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 3
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B's continued post-termination distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee constitutes a categorical misrepresentation of fact that violates a duty of honesty owed simultaneously to prospective clients, to Engineer A, and to the engineering profession. The duty of honesty, as a categorical obligation, does not admit of exceptions based on logistical inconvenience or the cost of reprinting brochures. Engineer B's post-termination conduct involves three distinct deontological wrongs. First, prospective clients are deceived about the personnel composition of the firm they are considering hiring, a deception that directly affects their ability to make informed contracting decisions. Second, Engineer A's professional identity and credentials are being exploited without consent to attract business to a firm Engineer A no longer represents, violating Engineer A's right to control the use of Engineer A's own professional reputation. Third, the engineering profession's collective commitment to honest representation — embodied in Sections II.5.a and III.3.a — is undermined when a firm principal knowingly distributes inaccurate personnel information. The Board's absolute prohibition on post-termination brochure distribution is therefore not merely a pragmatic rule but a deontologically necessary conclusion: no competing consideration can justify the knowing misrepresentation of material facts to prospective clients.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Engineer A's pre-departure solicitation of Engineer B's clients would have been substantially more defensible ethically — though not necessarily fully permissible — if Engineer A had first fully disclosed to Engineer B the intent to solicit those specific clients, obtained Engineer B's acknowledgment, and notified clients openly rather than covertly. Full prior disclosure to Engineer B would have satisfied the core of the faithful agent duty by eliminating the element of concealment and allowing Engineer B to make informed decisions about the notice period arrangement. Open notification to clients — as opposed to covert solicitation — would have respected the clients' right to make informed choices without the distortion created by Engineer A's insider position. However, even with these safeguards, a residual ethical concern would remain: Engineer A would still be using the employment relationship as a platform for competitive self-promotion, and Engineer B's clients would still be receiving competitive solicitations from someone who was simultaneously performing work on Engineer B's behalf. The most ethically clean resolution would have been for Engineer A to wait until after actual termination to solicit clients, even if that meant a competitive disadvantage. Full disclosure and open conduct would mitigate but not eliminate the ethical tension inherent in soliciting a current employer's clients during active employment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: The Board's ethical assessment of Engineer A's solicitation conduct would not have differed materially if Engineer A had waited until after actual termination to contact Engineer B's former clients, and the timing of Engineer B's termination notice does not create a morally relevant asymmetry sufficient to shift the ethical balance in Engineer A's favor during the notice period. After actual termination, Engineer A would be entirely free to solicit former clients under the Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility principle, and no ethical violation would arise. The moral asymmetry argument — that Engineer B's decision to terminate Engineer A at will should accelerate Engineer A's competitive freedom — is appealing but ultimately unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in response to Q102. What the termination notice does create is a legitimate basis for Engineer A to begin internal planning for a new firm, to consult with legal counsel about non-compete obligations, and to prepare marketing materials — all without crossing into active solicitation of current clients. The ethical boundary is between preparation and solicitation, not between employer-initiated and employee-initiated departures. The Board's framework correctly maintains this boundary regardless of who initiated the departure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.163989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: Engineer B's distribution of the brochure during the notice period would have been closer to unconditionally ethical — though still not entirely free of concern — if Engineer B had proactively issued a written errata sheet or addendum to all prospective clients at the time of each brochure distribution, rather than relying on oral disclosure only during active negotiations. Written correction at the point of distribution would satisfy the Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation more fully than oral disclosure, because it would reach all recipients of the brochure regardless of whether they entered active negotiations, it would create a documented record of the disclosure, and it would prevent the formation of a misleading impression in the minds of prospective clients who read the brochure but did not immediately contact Engineer B. The Board's conditional permissibility ruling is best understood as a pragmatic minimum: it acknowledges that immediate reprinting is not always feasible but does not endorse oral-only disclosure as the ideal standard. A written errata sheet is a low-cost mechanism that Engineer B could have deployed without significant burden, and its use would have more fully aligned Engineer B's conduct with the honesty and accuracy obligations embedded in Sections III.3.a and II.5.a. The Board's ruling leaves room for this higher standard without requiring it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 3
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: Engineer B's post-termination brochure distribution would likely remain ethically impermissible even if Engineer A had been listed as a non-key, peripheral employee rather than a key employee, though the severity of the violation and its practical impact on prospective clients' contracting decisions would be diminished. The Board's absolute prohibition on post-termination brochure use is grounded in the categorical honesty obligation under Sections II.5.a and III.3.a, which prohibit misrepresentation of material facts regardless of the degree of materiality. However, the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test applied by the Board does incorporate a materiality assessment: a misrepresentation must be both false and pertinent to the client's decision-making to constitute a full ethical violation. For a non-key, peripheral employee, the pertinence element would be weaker — prospective clients are less likely to rely on the listed participation of a peripheral employee in making contracting decisions. This suggests that while the post-termination brochure distribution would remain technically impermissible as a false statement of fact, the ethical gravity of the violation would be calibrated to the materiality of the listed employee's role. The Board's absolute prohibition is therefore best understood as applying with full force to key employees whose listed participation is material to client decisions, while the same conduct involving peripheral employees, though still impermissible, would represent a less serious violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 304
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.162183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 205
cited provision1: I.4
cited provision2: III.7
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection and the Faithful Agent Trustee Duty by treating them as operating on different temporal planes rather than as genuinely competing values. Client autonomy — the client's absolute right to choose their engineer — was acknowledged as a legitimate long-run principle, but the Board refused to allow it to serve as a real-time justification for Engineer A's solicitation conduct during the notice period. The Board's implicit reasoning is that client autonomy is a structural feature of the engineering marketplace that becomes operative after an employment relationship concludes, not a license that a currently employed engineer may invoke to justify redirecting a current employer's clients toward a competing venture. In other words, the principle of client autonomy does not dissolve the faithful agent duty; it merely defines the outer boundary of what the faithful agent duty can legitimately restrict once employment ends. This resolution teaches that client-protective principles and employer-protective principles are not symmetrically weighted: the faithful agent duty functions as a near-absolute constraint during active employment, while client autonomy functions as a permissive background norm that governs post-departure conduct.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 206
cited provision1: I.4
cited provision2: III.7
cited provision3: III.4.a
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Board's treatment of the At-Will Employment Symmetry principle reveals a fundamental asymmetry in how reciprocal at-will rights are ethically weighted. Engineer A's implicit argument — that because Engineer B could terminate Engineer A at will, Engineer A was equally free to begin competing for Engineer B's clients immediately upon receiving notice — was implicitly rejected. The Board's conclusion establishes that at-will employment symmetry is a legal concept that describes the absence of contractual barriers to departure, not an ethical license that neutralizes the faithful agent duty during the notice period. The Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition operates independently of whether a non-compete agreement exists: the absence of a written restriction does not convert covert solicitation of a current employer's clients into ethically permissible conduct. This case therefore teaches that at-will reciprocity can never serve as a standalone ethical justification for conduct that violates loyalty obligations, because the faithful agent duty is grounded in professional ethics codes rather than in contract law. The ethical obligation persists even where the legal obligation does not.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 207
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: II.5.a
cited provision2: III.3.a
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Board's conditional permissibility ruling on Engineer B's notice-period brochure distribution exposes an unresolved tension between the Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility principle and the Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation. By permitting Engineer B to continue distributing a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee provided oral disclosure of Engineer A's pending departure was made during active negotiations, the Board implicitly accepted a lower standard of accuracy for printed marketing materials than the Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation would seem to demand. A fully proactive accuracy standard would require Engineer B to correct the written record — through an errata sheet or written addendum — rather than relying on case-by-case oral qualification. The Board's ruling thus creates a two-tier disclosure regime: oral disclosure suffices during the notice period, but the absolute prohibition on post-termination brochure use implies that the written record must eventually be corrected. This tension is never fully resolved by the Board, and the case teaches that where a proactive accuracy obligation and a conditional permissibility principle coexist, the Board will calibrate the required correction mechanism to the severity of the misrepresentation risk rather than imposing a uniform written-correction standard across all stages of the employment transition. The practical implication is that Engineer B bore a progressively escalating accuracy obligation: permissive with oral disclosure during negotiations, conditionally permissive during the notice period, and absolutely prohibited after actual termination — a graduated rather than binary ethical standard.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 208
answers question3: 104
cited provision1: I.4
cited provision2: III.4.a
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The interaction between the Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility principle and the Specialized Knowledge Constraint reveals that the Board treated the temporal boundary of employment as the primary ethical dividing line for competitive solicitation, while leaving the specialized knowledge problem structurally unresolved. The Board acknowledged that Engineer A would be free to solicit Engineer B's former clients after departure, and that no written non-compete agreement existed, but it also noted the risk that Engineer A might use specialized knowledge gained during employment to target those clients. Rather than establishing a clear rule about whether employment-acquired client knowledge taints post-departure solicitation, the Board effectively deferred that question by finding the pre-departure solicitation unethical on faithful agent grounds alone. This deferral means the case does not resolve whether the specialized knowledge constraint survives the termination of employment or whether it evaporates once the faithful agent duty ends. The case therefore teaches that when the Board can resolve an ethical question on narrower grounds — the timing of solicitation relative to employment status — it will avoid adjudicating the harder question of whether knowledge acquired during employment creates a permanent competitive disadvantage for the departing engineer. The temporal boundary is treated as a bright line precisely because the knowledge-taint question has no clean answer.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: III 4 a
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 201
answers question10: 2
answers question11: 3
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 203
answers question4: 204
answers question5: 301
answers question6: 302
answers question7: 303
answers question8: 304
answers question9: 1
cited provision1: I.4
cited provision2: II.5.a
cited provision3: III.3.a
cited provision4: III.4.a
cited provision5: III.7
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: Taken together, the Board's three conclusions establish a graduated principle-prioritization hierarchy that operates across the full arc of the employment transition. During active employment — even under a notice of termination — the Faithful Agent Trustee Duty and the Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition are treated as near-absolute constraints that override both the At-Will Employment Symmetry principle and the Client Autonomy principle. During the notice period after termination notice but before actual termination, the Honesty Principle and the Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation are treated as satisfiable through oral disclosure during active negotiations, meaning the accuracy obligation is real but its discharge mechanism is flexible. After actual termination, the Honesty Principle and the Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation prohibition are treated as absolute, admitting no exceptions based on logistical difficulty or printing costs. This graduated hierarchy teaches that the NSPE Code does not apply principles uniformly across all phases of an employment relationship: the weight assigned to loyalty, honesty, and accuracy obligations shifts depending on whether the engineer is currently employed, in a notice period, or formally departed. The case thus functions as a temporal map of how competing principles are prioritized at each stage of a professional transition, with the faithful agent duty dominating during employment, a balanced disclosure standard governing the notice period, and an unqualified honesty obligation controlling post-departure conduct.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Current Client Solicitation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Employee Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Competitive harm to Engineer B's business during the notice period
foreseen unintended effects: Possible use of proprietary client information or specialized knowledge gained through employment
foreseen unintended effects: Potential diversion of Engineer B's current clients away from the firm
guided by principle text: Faithful agency
guided by principle text: Full disclosure to employer of conflicts of interest
guided by principle text: Good faith dealing
guided by principle text: Loyalty to employer during employment
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure future clients for a planned new engineering firm to protect livelihood following pending termination
raises obligation text: Duty not to use proprietary client information or specialized knowledge without full disclosure to employer (Section III.4.a.)
requires capability text: Ability to distinguish current from former clients
requires capability text: Knowledge of professional ethics obligations during employment
requires capability text: Understanding of disclosure obligations to employer
temporal marker: Shortly after November 15, 1982, during continued employment
temporal sequence: 7
violates obligation text: Duty of disclosure to employer regarding competitive activities (Section I.4.)
violates obligation text: Duty of good faith to current employer
violates obligation text: Duty of loyalty to current employer
violates obligation text: Duty to act as a faithful agent and trustee to the employer (Section I.4.)
violates obligation text: Prohibition on competing with employer using questionable methods (Section III.7.)
within competence: true
comment: While still employed by Engineer B and shortly after receiving termination notice, Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients to announce plans to start a new firm and solicit future work, without informing Engineer B. This constituted a breach of the duty of loyalty and faithful agency owed to a current employer.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.258971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Current Client Solicitation (Action 2) → Client Relationship Access Established (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: While still employed by Engineer B and shortly after receiving termination notice, Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients, exploiting the access established through continued employment
cause: Current Client Solicitation (Action 2)
counterfactual: Without continued employment access, Engineer A would not have had the same level of client relationship information or trust to leverage; solicitation would have been significantly less effective
effect: Client Relationship Access Established (Event 3)
necessary factors: Engineer A's continued employment granting legitimate access to client information
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional decision to solicit clients while still employed
necessary factors: Existence of Engineer B's established client relationships as targets
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Active employment status combined with deliberate solicitation decision and client access was sufficient to establish the ethically problematic client relationship pipeline
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A solicit Engineer B's current clients for a new competing firm during the notice period, or refrain from solicitation until after actual termination?
focus: Engineer A's Pre-Departure Solicitation of Engineer B's Current Clients During Notice Period: Whether soliciting an employer's current clients for a competing venture while still employed and drawing compensation violates the faithful agent duty under NSPE Code Section I.4, even when the termination was employer-initiated.
option1: Refrain from contacting Engineer B's current clients during the notice period; use the interim time for internal planning, legal consultation, and preparation of marketing materials, then solicit former clients only after the employment relationship has fully concluded.
option2: Notify Engineer B's current clients of the new firm during the notice period, reasoning that Engineer B's employer-initiated termination dissolved the reciprocal loyalty foundation and that at-will employment symmetry permits immediate competitive positioning.
option3: Inform Engineer B of the intent to solicit specific clients before making contact, thereby satisfying the disclosure component of the faithful agent duty while still exercising competitive mobility rights during the notice period with Engineer B's knowledge.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A disclose to Engineer B that Engineer A is actively soliciting Engineer B's current clients during the notice period, or proceed with solicitation without informing Engineer B?
focus: Engineer A's Independent Disclosure Obligation: Whether Engineer A's failure to disclose to Engineer B that solicitation of Engineer B's current clients was actively underway during the notice period constitutes an independent breach of the faithful agent duty, separate from and compounding the ethical violation of the solicitation itself.
option1: Inform Engineer B before or contemporaneously with client contact that Engineer A is notifying clients of the new firm, satisfying the affirmative disclosure component of the faithful agent duty and allowing Engineer B to make informed decisions about the notice period arrangement.
option2: Contact Engineer B's clients without informing Engineer B, reasoning that the employer-initiated termination dissolved the reciprocal trust basis for the disclosure obligation and that advance notice would expose Engineer A to retaliation or accelerated termination.
option3: Notify clients only that Engineer A is starting a new firm and is available for future work, without leveraging specific insider knowledge of client project needs or vulnerabilities, and without disclosing the solicitation to Engineer B — treating the general announcement as categorically different from targeted competitive solicitation.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer B accompany each brochure distribution during the notice period with a written errata sheet disclosing Engineer A's pending departure, or is oral disclosure during active client negotiations sufficient to satisfy the honesty obligation?
focus: Engineer B's Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Disclosure Standard: Whether Engineer B's continued distribution of a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period was ethical, and what disclosure mechanism — oral during active negotiations, or written errata accompanying each distribution — was required to prevent client misrepresentation.
option1: Accompany every brochure distributed during the notice period with a written errata sheet or cover letter disclosing Engineer A's pending departure, ensuring all recipients — not only those in active negotiations — receive accurate personnel information and creating a documented record of disclosure.
option2: Continue distributing the existing brochure without modification but verbally inform each prospective client of Engineer A's pending termination during active negotiation sessions, treating oral disclosure as sufficient to cure the misrepresentation risk for clients who are actually evaluating the firm.
option3: Cease distributing the existing brochure immediately upon issuing the termination notice and withhold marketing materials until a corrected version omitting Engineer A's name can be printed, accepting the temporary competitive disadvantage of reduced marketing activity during the notice period.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Must Engineer B immediately cease distributing all brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee upon Engineer A's actual termination, or may Engineer B continue distributing previously printed materials while arranging for reprinting?
focus: Engineer B's Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Cessation: Whether Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination constitutes an absolute ethical violation, and whether logistical difficulty or inadvertence provides any mitigation.
option1: Stop distributing any version of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee the moment Engineer A's employment formally ends, accepting a temporary gap in marketing materials until a corrected brochure can be printed, regardless of cost or competitive inconvenience.
option2: Continue distributing the existing brochure after Engineer A's actual termination while verbally informing prospective clients during negotiations that Engineer A has since departed, applying the same oral-disclosure standard used during the notice period as a transitional measure until reprinting is complete.
option3: Immediately withdraw the existing brochure from active distribution and issue a written notice to all prospective clients who received the brochure during the notice period informing them of Engineer A's departure, while expediting reprinting of corrected materials.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A take affirmative steps to correct Engineer B's post-termination brochure misrepresentation — by formally demanding Engineer B cease distribution or notifying affected clients directly — or treat the correction obligation as resting solely with Engineer B?
focus: Engineer A's Post-Departure Obligation to Correct Ongoing Brochure Misrepresentation: Whether Engineer A bears an independent affirmative obligation under Section II.5.a to take steps to prevent Engineer B's continued post-termination use of a brochure listing Engineer A as a current key employee, given that Engineer A's professional identity and credentials are being misrepresented without consent.
option1: Send a written demand to Engineer B requiring immediate cessation of brochure distribution listing Engineer A as a current key employee, documenting the demand and reserving the right to notify affected clients directly if Engineer B fails to comply within a reasonable time.
option2: Take no affirmative action regarding Engineer B's continued brochure use, reasoning that primary ethical responsibility for accurate marketing materials rests entirely with Engineer B as the distributing party and that Engineer A has no practical authority over Engineer B's distribution channels post-departure.
option3: Proactively contact prospective clients known to have received Engineer B's brochure to clarify that Engineer A is no longer affiliated with Engineer B's firm, simultaneously protecting Engineer A's professional reputation and correcting the misrepresentation at the point of client reliance.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A limit client solicitation to contacts made without leveraging insider knowledge of Engineer B's client project needs and vulnerabilities, or may Engineer A use all employment-acquired client intelligence to identify and target solicitation efforts?
focus: Engineer A's Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Client Solicitation: Whether Engineer A's use of insider knowledge about Engineer B's client roster, project needs, and relationship dynamics — acquired exclusively through employment — to identify and target specific clients for solicitation constitutes an independent ethical violation under Section III.4.a beyond the mere timing of the solicitation.
option1: Limit client outreach to contacts identifiable through publicly available sources — directories, prior public project records, professional networks — without leveraging insider knowledge of specific project needs, budgets, or decision-making vulnerabilities acquired through employment with Engineer B.
option2: Deploy full knowledge of Engineer B's client roster, project pipelines, and relationship dynamics to craft targeted solicitations, reasoning that this knowledge is inseparable from Engineer A's general professional experience and that no consent requirement applies absent a written confidentiality agreement.
option3: Inform Engineer B of the intent to use employment-acquired client knowledge in solicitation efforts and seek Engineer B's acknowledgment before making client contact, satisfying the disclosure component of Section III.4.a while preserving Engineer A's ability to compete using professional knowledge developed during employment.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Employment Termination Notice Received
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Confidentiality_During_Employment_Constraint
activates constraint: Employee_Loyalty_Constraint
activates constraint: Employer_Fair_Treatment_Constraint
activates constraint: Non_Solicitation_Constraint
causes state change: Employment relationship enters ambiguous interim phase; Engineer A gains legitimate interest in future employment while retaining current duties; Engineer B assumes obligation to manage transition honestly
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Both_Parties_Must_Navigate_Transition_Ethically
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Gains_Right_To_Seek_Future_Employment
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Continue_Loyal_Service_During_Notice_Period
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Update_Public_Representations_Of_Staff
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: November 15, 1982
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A receives formal notification of pending termination due to lack of work, creating a legally and ethically ambiguous interim employment period. This event marks the beginning of a transitional phase with competing obligations for both parties.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer-Confidentiality-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerConfidentialityandLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (accumulated precedent)
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norm: Prohibition on Using Employer's Proprietary Information Without Disclosure
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: As an employee of Engineer B, Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer.
textreferences: As an employee of Engineer B, Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to the question of whether Engineer A improperly used client information, trade secrets, or specialized knowledge gained during employment to solicit current clients without disclosure to Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.268729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer-Departure-and-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerDepartureandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's conduct during the transition period
usedincontext: Governs the balance between Engineer A's right to establish a competing firm and obligations to Engineer B as current employer, including limits on solicitation during the notice period
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.260126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer-Solicitation-and-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's conduct in approaching Engineer B's clients
usedincontext: Provides normative framework for evaluating whether Engineer A's active solicitation of Engineer B's clients during the employment notice period crossed ethical boundaries regarding competition and solicitation conduct
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.263151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A-B-Client Three-Party Departure Balancing
type: Three-PartyEngineerDepartureInterestBalancingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the Board's analysis of the case
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code
stateclass: Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing State
subject: The tripartite balancing of Engineer A's mobility rights, Engineer B's goodwill interests, and clients' free choice of engineer
terminatedby: Board's resolution establishing that post-employment competition with former clients is permissible but current-client solicitation while employed is not
textreferences: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice
textreferences: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code
textreferences: We have often held that (the Code) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms
triggeringevent: Engineer A's departure from Engineer B's firm and subsequent competitive solicitation of Engineer B's clients
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.270596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A At-Will Competitive Mobility Permissibility During Notice Period
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryCompetitiveMobilityPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received an employer-initiated termination notice and immediately began notifying Engineer B's clients of intent to start a competing firm while still employed during the notice period.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's right to establish a competing firm was ethically permissible as a matter of at-will employment symmetry — Engineer B had terminated Engineer A, and Engineer A had no written non-compete agreement — but this permissibility did not extend to active solicitation of Engineer B's clients during the notice period while still employed.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section I.4; NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 86-5; at-will employment symmetry principle
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 (termination notice) through actual termination date
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.279135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A At-Will Employment Reciprocity Ethical Boundary Recognition
type: At-WillEmploymentReciprocityEthicalBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: At-Will Employment Reciprocity Ethical Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that the at-will employment doctrine's reciprocity — permitting free movement between positions — did not suspend his other ethical obligations such as honesty, faithful agent duties, and non-misrepresentation during the notice period.
casecontext: Engineer A received an employer-initiated termination, triggering the at-will reciprocity principle while maintaining ethical constraints on departure conduct.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's situation where the employer-initiated termination created a reciprocal right to compete, but this right did not eliminate the ethical constraints on the manner of competition.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.284875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Current-Client Covert Solicitation While Employed Faithful Agent Prohibition BER-82
type: Current-ClientCovertSolicitationWhileEmployedFaithfulAgentProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received a termination notice from Engineer B on November 15, 1982, but remained employed during a notice period. During that period, Engineer A notified Engineer B's current clients of an intent to offer competing professional services without disclosing this solicitation to Engineer B.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Current-Client Covert Solicitation While Employed Faithful Agent Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, while still employed by and receiving compensation from Engineer B and bound by faithful agent duties under NSPE Code Section I.4, was prohibited from covertly notifying Engineer B's current clients of an offer of competing professional services without disclosing such solicitation to Engineer B — the prohibition arising from the combination of (1) the clients being current (not former) clients of Engineer B, and (2) Engineer A being still employed (not departed) at the time of solicitation.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.4; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.
temporalscope: From the date of termination notice (November 15, 1982) through the date of actual departure from Engineer B's firm
textreferences: Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.
textreferences: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
textreferences: it is concluded that Engineer A violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.293561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Employee Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment
type: DepartingEmployeeSpecializedKnowledgeCompetitiveRestrictionSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Employee Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to self-assess whether he had acquired particular or specialized knowledge about specific client projects during his employment with Engineer B that would ethically restrict his ability to compete for those specific projects.
casecontext: Engineer A's departure and solicitation of Engineer B's clients raised the question of whether specialized project knowledge constrained his competitive activities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The case's conditional analysis that if Engineer A had gained specialized knowledge about specific projects, he would be ethically restricted from competing for those projects, requiring Engineer A to make this self-assessment.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.284120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honest Representation
type: DepartingEngineerClientSolicitationHonestRepresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honest Representation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct solicitation of Engineer B's clients honestly, accurately, and without misrepresentation of Engineer B's capabilities or capacity to perform, requiring the capability to maintain honest representation standards in competitive solicitation.
casecontext: Engineer A solicited Engineer B's clients for his new firm while still employed during the notice period.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients upon receiving the termination notice, which needed to be conducted without false or misleading statements about Engineer B's firm.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.283513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Non-Disparagement
type: DepartingEngineerFormerEmployerClientSolicitationHonestyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's notification to Engineer B's clients of intent to start a competing firm must have been conducted without false or misleading statements about Engineer B's firm.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Departing Engineer Former Employer Client Solicitation Honesty Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to conduct all solicitation of Engineer B's clients honestly and without misrepresentation of Engineer B's capabilities or capacity to perform, prohibiting any disparagement of Engineer B's firm in the course of soliciting those clients.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; non-deception provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: During notice period and post-departure
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.280532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Employed Engineer Specialized Project Knowledge Consent Requirement
type: EmployedEngineerSpecializedProjectKnowledgeConsent-RequiredCompetitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients raised the question of whether any solicitation targeted specific projects on which Engineer A had gained specialized knowledge during employment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employed Engineer Specialized Project Knowledge Consent-Required Competition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from engaging in promotional efforts or negotiations for work on specific projects for which Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge while employed by Engineer B, without the consent of all interested parties, even after actual departure.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4.a; NSPE BER Case 77-8
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: During notice period and post-departure
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.280359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Notice Client Solicitation Timing Permissibility Assessment
type: Employer-InitiatedTerminationNoticeClientSolicitationTimingPermissibilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer-Initiated Termination Notice Client Solicitation Timing Permissibility Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to assess whether soliciting Engineer B's clients immediately upon receiving the employer-initiated termination notice was ethically permissible, given that the termination was employer-initiated rather than voluntary.
casecontext: Engineer A received an employer-initiated termination notice and immediately solicited Engineer B's clients while continuing to work during the notice period.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's immediate notification to Engineer B's clients upon receiving the November 15, 1982 termination notice, raising the question of whether this timing was permissible given the employer-initiated nature of the termination.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.261772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty of Loyalty Good Faith Disclosure Notice Period BER-82
type: Current-ClientCovertSolicitationWhileEmployedFaithfulAgentProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board found that the duty to disclose is an essential aspect of the faithful agent obligations of loyalty and good faith, and that covert promotional activity to the employer's detriment is incompatible with those obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Current-Client Covert Solicitation While Employed Faithful Agent Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the faithful agent duty under NSPE Code Section I.4 to recognize obligations of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure to Engineer B during the notice period — obligations that were irreconcilable with covert promotional activity to Engineer B's detriment, including solicitation of Engineer B's current clients without disclosure.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.4
sourcetext: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
temporalscope: Throughout the active employment relationship, including the notice period
textreferences: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
textreferences: An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
textreferences: Certainly it is not possible for an engineer to meet those obligations to the employer if the engineer is engaging in such promotional activity to the employer's detriment.
textreferences: That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.293826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Notice-Period Active Solicitation Ethical Boundary
type: Employer-InitiatedTerminationNoticePre-DepartureClientSolicitationEthicalBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A immediately notified Engineer B's clients of intent to start a competing firm upon receiving the termination notice, while continuing to work for Engineer B for several additional months.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employer-Initiated Termination Notice Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Ethical Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having received an employer-initiated termination notice on November 15, 1982, was constrained from actively soliciting Engineer B's clients during the notice period while still employed and receiving compensation, because such active solicitation during continued employment constitutes competition by questionable methods and a breach of faithful agent duty, regardless of the employer's prior decision to terminate.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.4; NSPE Code Section III.7; NSPE BER Case 77-11
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
temporalscope: November 15, 1982 through actual termination date
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.279850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Improper Competitive Method Active Solicitation During Employment
type: ImproperCompetitiveMethodProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A notified Engineer B's clients of intent to start a competing firm immediately upon receiving the termination notice, while continuing to work for Engineer B for several additional months.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's active solicitation of Engineer B's clients during the notice period while still employed and receiving compensation from Engineer B constituted an attempt to obtain professional engagements through questionable methods — specifically, leveraging the employment relationship and access to client information to divert clients before departure.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; NSPE Code Section I.4
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: November 15, 1982 through actual termination date
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.283053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A No-Compete Agreement Absence Ethical Obligation Persistence Recognition
type: No-CompeteAgreementAbsenceEthicalObligationPersistenceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: No-Compete Agreement Absence Ethical Obligation Persistence Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that the absence of a formal no-compete agreement did not eliminate his ethical obligations — including faithful agent duties, honest representation, and specialized knowledge constraints — during and after the notice period.
casecontext: Engineer A's departure and competitive solicitation occurred without a formal no-compete agreement, but ethical obligations persisted.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The case's analysis that ethical obligations persist regardless of whether a formal no-compete agreement exists, requiring Engineer A to recognize that legal permissibility does not establish ethical permissibility.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.284609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A No Written Non-Compete Post-Departure Solicitation Permissibility
type: No-Written-Non-CompetePost-DepartureCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: No written non-compete agreement existed between Engineer A and Engineer B, establishing the baseline permissibility of post-departure competition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: No-Written-Non-Compete Post-Departure Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: In the absence of any written non-compete agreement, Engineer A was not ethically prohibited from soliciting Engineer B's clients after actual departure — but this post-departure permissibility did not retroactively legitimize solicitation conducted during the active employment notice period.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code; NSPE BER Case 77-11; free and open competition framework
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: Post-actual-termination period
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.279334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Notice-Period Faithful Agent Continued Performance Boundary Maintenance
type: Notice-PeriodFaithfulAgentContinuedPerformanceBoundaryMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Notice-Period Faithful Agent Continued Performance Boundary Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to maintain faithful agent conduct toward Engineer B during the several months of continued employment following the termination notice, correctly identifying the boundary between permissible competitive preparation and impermissible conduct.
casecontext: Engineer A continued working for Engineer B for several months after receiving the termination notice while having already solicited Engineer B's clients.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's continuation of work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice while simultaneously having notified Engineer B's clients of his new firm.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.283330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation
type: Post-DepartureFirmBrochurePersonnelListingCorrectionInitiationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to take affirmative steps — upon receiving the termination notice and upon actual departure — to ensure that Engineer B's marketing materials were promptly corrected to remove his name, including communicating to Engineer B the obligation to update materials.
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination, creating an obligation for Engineer A to initiate correction.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to affirmatively act to correct Engineer B's continued use of brochures listing him as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.285067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Departure Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility BER-82
type: No-Written-Non-CompetePost-DepartureCompetitiveSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly preserved BER Case 77-11's holding that post-departure solicitation of former clients is permissible, distinguishing it from the impermissible pre-departure solicitation of current clients at issue in BER Case 82-5.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: No-Written-Non-Compete Post-Departure Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, after fully severing all employment ties with Engineer B, was not ethically prohibited from soliciting Engineer B's former clients for competing professional services — provided such solicitation did not involve specialized project knowledge gained during employment — as the BER Case 77-11 permissive holding remained applicable to the post-departure context.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code; BER Case 77-11; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
temporalscope: After actual cessation of employment with Engineer B
textreferences: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice.
textreferences: To the contrary, those were the facts of Case 77-11 and that case remains a proper interpretation of the Code.
textreferences: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.294128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Departure Internal Planning Non-Violation Boundary
type: Pre-DepartureInternalPlanningWithoutOvertActionNon-ViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case distinguishes between permissible pre-departure planning and impermissible active solicitation during the notice period.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Pre-Departure Internal Planning Without Overt Action Non-Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's internal planning and decision to form a competing firm — prior to taking overt promotional action such as notifying Engineer B's clients — did not itself constitute an ethical violation; the ethical constraint is triggered only when planning crosses into active solicitation during the employment period.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: NSPE Code; NSPE BER precedent on pre-departure planning
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: Prior to November 15, 1982 notification to clients
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.282858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Questionable Competition Methods Covert Solicitation Non-Disclosure BER-82
type: EmployedEngineerCurrent-ClientSolicitationEmployerNon-DisclosureQuestionableCompetitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board found that Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients without disclosure constituted competition by questionable methods under Section III.7, independent of and in addition to the Section I.4 faithful agent violation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employed Engineer Current-Client Solicitation Employer Non-Disclosure Questionable Competition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from competing with Engineer B through questionable methods under NSPE Code Section III.7 — a constraint violated by the combination of failing to act as a faithful employee and failing to disclose the competitive solicitation activity to Engineer B, with the Board finding that Engineer A knew or should have known the conduct was problematic and dubious even if not certain it was unethical.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
temporalscope: During the notice period while still employed by Engineer B
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
textreferences: Therefore, we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III.7.
textreferences: by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.293327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Current-Client Solicitation Full-Disclosure Prerequisite BER-82
type: EmployedEngineerSpecializedKnowledgeCurrent-ClientSolicitationFull-DisclosurePrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board addressed this as a conditional finding — the facts did not confirm whether Engineer A had actually used specialized knowledge, but established the constraint as applicable if such knowledge was used without disclosure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employed Engineer Specialized Knowledge Current-Client Solicitation Full-Disclosure Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained, to the extent he had gained particular and specialized knowledge about Engineer B's clients' projects during employment, from engaging in promotional efforts for work on those specific projects without full disclosure to Engineer B — with the Board finding that use of proprietary client information, trade secrets, or other valuable employer information without full disclosure would constitute a violation of NSPE Code Section III.4.a.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4.a; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: A related question under the facts of this case is whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge.
temporalscope: During the notice period while still employed by Engineer B, and potentially extending post-departure for specific projects involving specialized knowledge
textreferences: A related question under the facts of this case is whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: As an employee of Engineer B, Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer.
textreferences: Assuming that in fact Engineer A had gained such knowledge and then sought such work without full disclosure to the employer, Engineer B, it appears that Engineer A would have violated Section III.4.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.294334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Solicitation Restriction During and After Employment
type: SpecializedKnowledgePost-DepartureCompetitionRestrictionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients during the notice period raised the question of whether any solicitation involved projects on which Engineer A had gained specialized knowledge while employed.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Restriction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from soliciting or competing for specific projects on which Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge during employment with Engineer B, even after actual departure, as this specialized knowledge restriction applies regardless of the absence of a written non-compete agreement.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4.a; NSPE BER Case 77-11
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: During notice period and post-departure
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.279536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Three-Party Departure Interest Balancing Competitive Conduct BER-82
type: Three-PartyEngineerDepartureInterestBalancingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board's analysis implicitly applied the tripartite balancing framework, preserving client choice rights and Engineer A's post-departure mobility while finding that the covert current-client solicitation during employment impermissibly harmed Engineer B's goodwill interests.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's departure-related competitive conduct was constrained by the tripartite interest-balancing framework requiring fair consideration of (1) Engineer B's legitimate interest in maintaining client goodwill, (2) Engineer A's right to professional mobility and independent practice, and (3) Engineer B's clients' right to choose their engineer — with the Board finding that Engineer A's covert solicitation of current clients while employed impermissibly subordinated Engineer B's goodwill interests through deceptive means.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code; BER Cases 77-11, 82-5
sourcetext: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice.
temporalscope: Throughout the notice period and post-departure competitive activities
textreferences: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice.
textreferences: We have often held that (the Code) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
textreferences: it is concluded that Engineer A violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.295786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Tripartite Departure Conduct Interest Balancing
type: TripartiteDepartureConductInterestBalancingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Tripartite Departure Conduct Interest Balancing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to evaluate his departure-related conduct by balancing his own legitimate interest in establishing a new practice, Engineer B's legitimate interest in protecting client relationships, and the clients' legitimate interest in freely choosing their engineering service providers.
casecontext: Engineer A's departure conduct involved competing interests among himself, Engineer B, and Engineer B's clients.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's decision to immediately solicit Engineer B's clients upon receiving the termination notice, which required balancing all three competing interests to determine whether the timing and manner of solicitation was ethically appropriate.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.284395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Tripartite Departure Interest Balancing Solicitation Conduct Assessment
type: TripartiteDepartureInterestBalancingFrameworkApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case presents a classic three-party departure scenario requiring balancing of Engineer A's mobility rights, Engineer B's goodwill interests, and clients' free choice of engineer.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Tripartite Departure Interest Balancing Framework Application Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's solicitation conduct during the notice period must be assessed against the tripartite framework balancing: (1) Engineer A's right to professional mobility and career development; (2) Engineer B's legitimate interest in maintaining client goodwill; and (3) clients' right to choose their engineer — with no single interest categorically paramount.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5; tripartite departure interest balancing principle
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: November 15, 1982 through actual termination and post-departure period
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.280063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A's duty as faithful agent/trustee during Engineer A's continued employment with Engineer B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee... As an employee of Engineer B, Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer.
from entity text: Engineer A's duty as faithful agent/trustee
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's continued employment with Engineer B
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s continued employment with Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients during Engineer A's continued employment with Engineer B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice... Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
from entity text: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's continued employment with Engineer B
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s continued employment with Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B BER Dual-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation
type: BERDual-PrecedentBrochurePersonnelMisrepresentationSpectrumTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to retrieve and triangulate between BER precedent cases on brochure personnel misrepresentation to correctly locate the present scenario — involving a terminated key employee listed post-departure — on the spectrum from permissible to impermissible, identifying the critical factual distinctions that determine which precedent governs.
casecontext: Engineer B's brochure distribution conduct required application of BER precedent framework to determine ethical obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The ethical analysis of Engineer B's brochure distribution conduct required triangulation between BER precedents to determine whether the key employee listing during and after the notice period constituted a violation.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.287055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B BER Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration
type: BERPrecedentIntent-DifferentiatedMisrepresentationSeverityCalibrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The brochure was previously printed, suggesting possible inadvertence in initial distribution, but continued use well after actual termination raises questions about intent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: BER Precedent Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethical assessment of Engineer B's continued brochure distribution must calibrate violation severity to the degree of intent demonstrated — distinguishing between intentional enhancement of firm qualifications (clear violation under BER Case 83-1) and inadvertent oversight without malice (not a violation under BER Case 90-4) — while prohibiting use of inadvertence as a blanket shield against all ethical scrutiny.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 83-1; NSPE BER Case 90-4; intent-differentiated misrepresentation analysis
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 through post-termination period
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.282432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B BER Multi-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Synthesis
type: BERMulti-PrecedentBrochurePersonnelMisrepresentationSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases addressing engineering firm brochure personnel misrepresentation to identify the critical factual distinctions and extract transferable normative principles applicable to the present scenario.
casecontext: Engineer B's brochure distribution conduct required multi-precedent synthesis to determine the applicable ethical framework.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The ethical analysis of Engineer B's brochure distribution conduct required synthesis of multiple BER precedents to determine the applicable ethical standard for key employee listing after termination notice.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.287512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment
type: BrochureDistributionIntent-and-PurposeEvidenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to assess whether the continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A was motivated by the intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications — the second required element of the dual-element misrepresentation test — particularly given that Engineer B had actual knowledge of Engineer A's departure.
casecontext: Engineer B distributed the brochure with actual knowledge of Engineer A's termination, raising the intent-and-purpose element of the misrepresentation analysis.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure after having actual knowledge of Engineer A's termination, which constitutes evidence of intent to enhance qualifications through the misrepresentation.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.286308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration
type: BrochureMisrepresentationCase-by-CasePertinenceCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the continued listing of Engineer A as a key employee in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts, evaluating factors including Engineer A's key employee designation, uniqueness of expertise, and the proportion of firm services affected.
casecontext: Engineer B's continued brochure distribution required case-by-case assessment of pertinence across two distinct phases: the notice period and post-actual-termination.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's obligation to conduct a case-by-case pertinence assessment rather than applying a categorical rule, particularly to distinguish the notice-period scenario from the post-actual-termination scenario.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.286533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment
type: ErrataSheetExpeditiousCorrectionMechanismDeploymentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to identify and deploy low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, or strike-outs — upon receiving actual knowledge of the inaccuracy in the brochure at the moment of issuing the termination notice to Engineer A.
casecontext: Engineer B had actual knowledge of the brochure inaccuracy from the moment of issuing the termination notice but failed to deploy correction mechanisms.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's failure to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms after issuing the termination notice, instead continuing to distribute the inaccurate brochure during the notice period and after actual termination.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.285589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Deployment
type: ErrataSheetReasonablePeriodCorrectionDeploymentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B continued to distribute the previously printed brochure without deploying any correction mechanisms after issuing the termination notice to Engineer A.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Errata Sheet Reasonable Period Correction Deployment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, or strike-outs — within a reasonable period of time after issuing the termination notice to Engineer A, to prevent prospective clients from being misled by the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 83-1; marketing material correction standards
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 onward through actual termination and beyond
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.281434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Notice Period BER-82
type: ErrataSheetReasonablePeriodCorrectionDeploymentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board balanced the impracticability of universal written brochure amendment against the availability of low-cost correction mechanisms, establishing that the latter could be deployed during active negotiations without imposing an unreasonable burden on the firm.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Errata Sheet Reasonable Period Correction Deployment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, or strike-outs — within a reasonable period during the notice period to address the brochure's misleading listing of Engineer A as a key employee, with the Board finding that while a universal written amendment to all brochures was impracticable, the availability of low-cost mechanisms eliminated logistical justification for complete inaction during active client negotiations.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Sections II.5.a, III.3.a; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: a requirement that Engineer B insert an addendum or an amendment in the brochure informing prospective clients that Engineer A would soon be leaving the firm is both impracticable and unnecessary.
temporalscope: From the date of termination notice issuance through Engineer A's actual departure
textreferences: That would be a burden to all firms from the standpoint of both time and cost.
textreferences: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
textreferences: a requirement that Engineer B insert an addendum or an amendment in the brochure informing prospective clients that Engineer A would soon be leaving the firm is both impracticable and unnecessary.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal
type: FirmPrincipalPost-DeparturePersonnelListingPromptRemovalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to promptly identify and remove Engineer A from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon issuing the termination notice and upon Engineer A's actual departure, recognizing that continued listing constituted deceptive advertising.
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after issuing the termination notice and after Engineer A's actual departure.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's failure to remove Engineer A from the firm brochure both during the notice period and well after actual termination, demonstrating the need for this capability.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.285197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Boundary Recognition
type: FreeEnterpriseDepartureRightNon-Ethical-ProscriptionBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to recognize that Engineer A's decision to depart and establish a competing firm — even while still employed during the notice period — was a legitimate exercise of free enterprise rights that could not be ethically proscribed, and to correctly distinguish this permissible departure from the manner of departure which remained subject to ethical constraints.
casecontext: Engineer B received notice that Engineer A intended to start a competing firm, requiring recognition of Engineer A's free enterprise departure rights.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The case's analysis that Engineer B was obligated to recognize Engineer A's free enterprise right to depart and compete, even though Engineer B had legitimate interests in protecting client relationships.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.287277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Inadvertent Brochure Inaccuracy Expeditious Correction Non-Condoning
type: InadvertentMarketingInaccuracyNon-CondoningExpeditiousCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The brochure was previously printed, suggesting the initial distribution may have been inadvertent, but Engineer B's continued use well after actual termination raises the question of whether corrective action was taken.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Inadvertent Marketing Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Even if Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A was found to reflect inadvertent oversight rather than intentional misrepresentation, Engineer B was nonetheless constrained to take expeditious corrective action to eliminate any false impression created — a finding of non-violation does not license continued inaccuracy.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 90-4; inadvertent inaccuracy correction standards
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
temporalscope: From the point of actual knowledge of Engineer A's departure onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.281706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Interim Negotiation Pending-Departure Disclosure Obligation
type: PendingEmployeeDepartureProspectiveClientDisclosureObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A received formal termination notice through Engineer A's actual formal departure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients of Engineer B's firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination
stateclass: Pending Employee Departure Prospective Client Disclosure Obligation State
subject: Engineer B's obligation to disclose Engineer A's pending termination to prospective clients during active negotiations in the interim period
terminatedby: Engineer A's formal departure (at which point the obligation escalated to complete cessation of brochure use)
textreferences: Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination
textreferences: That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects
textreferences: a requirement that Engineer B insert an addendum or an amendment in the brochure informing prospective clients that Engineer A would soon be leaving the firm is both impracticable and unnecessary
triggeringevent: Engineer B giving Engineer A formal notice of termination while Engineer A remained named as a key employee in the firm's promotional brochure and while the firm continued to engage prospective clients
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.261556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction
type: Key-EmployeevsNon-Key-EmployeeBrochureListingMaterialityDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to recognize that listing Engineer A as a 'key employee' — as opposed to a non-key employee — in the firm's promotional brochure constituted a material misrepresentation of pertinent facts, triggering heightened corrective obligations.
casecontext: Engineer B's brochure specifically listed Engineer A as a 'key employee,' which is the critical factual distinction determining the ethical obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The case's specific identification of Engineer A as a 'key employee' in Engineer B's brochure, which is the critical factual element that determines the materiality of the misrepresentation and the stringency of the corrective obligation.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.286082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Key Employee Status Materiality Threshold Brochure Listing Assessment
type: KeyEmployeeStatusMaterialityThresholdBrochureListingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The brochure listed Engineer A as one of Engineer B's 'key employees,' making the key employee status determination central to the ethical analysis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Key Employee Status Materiality Threshold Brochure Listing Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's ethical obligation regarding the brochure listing Engineer A turns critically on whether Engineer A was a 'key employee' — if so, continued listing after departure constitutes a per se misrepresentation of pertinent facts; if not, a case-by-case materiality assessment is required — and Engineer B cannot treat the absence of an explicit 'key employee' label as a blanket shield against misrepresentation findings.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 83-1; key employee materiality threshold analysis
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 through post-termination period
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.282137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse Brochure Correction Delay
type: LogisticalDifficultyNon-ExcuseforMarketingCorrectionDelayConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B continued to use the previously printed brochure, suggesting that the cost or difficulty of reprinting may have been a factor in the failure to correct the inaccuracy.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse for Marketing Correction Delay Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B cannot use the logistical difficulty of reprinting previously printed brochures as justification for indefinite delay in correcting the misrepresentation of Engineer A as a current key employee — the availability of low-cost correction mechanisms such as errata sheets eliminates any logistical excuse for delay.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 83-1; marketing material correction standards
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.282614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Marketing Material Accuracy Currency Maintenance Notice Period BER-82
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, as the person who terminated Engineer A, had actual knowledge of the impending departure from the moment of issuing the notice, yet continued to distribute brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual departure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to maintain the accuracy and currency of the firm's promotional brochure with respect to personnel listings — an obligation triggered at the moment Engineer B issued the termination notice to Engineer A, because from that moment Engineer B had actual knowledge that the brochure's listing of Engineer A as a key employee would become or was already misleading to prospective clients.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.5.a, III.3.a; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: Certainly, Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A. Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
temporalscope: From the date of termination notice issuance through and beyond Engineer A's actual departure
textreferences: Certainly, Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A. Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination by Engineer B.
textreferences: That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.295237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Marketing Material Accuracy Currency Maintenance Obligation
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A, without updating or correcting the materials.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to continuously maintain and update the firm's promotional brochure to ensure it accurately reflected current personnel, prohibiting the continued use of outdated materials listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's departure was known.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; NSPE Code Section III.3.a; marketing material accuracy standards
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 (when departure was known) onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.281230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to actively maintain and update the firm's promotional brochure to ensure it remained accurate and non-deceptive regarding current key personnel, recognizing that continued distribution of outdated materials constitutes a breach of professional ethics.
casecontext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure that had become inaccurate upon issuance of the termination notice to Engineer A.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's continued distribution of a 'previously printed brochure' listing Engineer A as a key employee, demonstrating failure to maintain marketing material accuracy and currency.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.285719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Non-Key-Employee Departure Notice-Period Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment
type: Non-Key-EmployeeDepartureNotice-PeriodBrochureConditionalPermissibilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Key-Employee Departure Notice-Period Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to assess whether continued distribution of the existing printed brochure listing Engineer A during the active notice period was conditionally permissible — evaluating Engineer A's key employee designation, the uniqueness of his expertise, and whether distribution was motivated by intent to enhance qualifications — and to recognize that the key employee designation in this case likely precluded such conditional permissibility.
casecontext: Engineer B distributed the brochure during the notice period when Engineer A was still employed but had been given termination notice.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's distribution of the brochure during the notice period (between November 15, 1982 and Engineer A's actual termination), which required assessment of conditional permissibility given Engineer A's key employee status.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.286745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Prospective-Client Pending-Departure Oral Disclosure BER-82
type: Notice-PeriodProspective-ClientPending-DepartureOralDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board established a calibrated middle-ground obligation for the notice period: oral disclosure during active negotiations is required, but universal written brochure amendment is not — balancing the prospective client's material interest in accurate personnel information against the practical burden on firms of correcting all printed materials during a notice period.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Notice-Period Prospective-Client Pending-Departure Oral Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained, during the interim period between issuing the termination notice to Engineer A and Engineer A's actual cessation of employment, to orally inform prospective clients during active negotiations of Engineer A's pending termination — while not being required to insert written addenda into every printed brochure distributed during that period, as such a universal written correction requirement would be impracticable and unnecessarily burdensome.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.5.a, III.3.a; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
temporalscope: From the date of termination notice (November 15, 1982) through the date of Engineer A's actual departure
textreferences: That would be a burden to all firms from the standpoint of both time and cost.
textreferences: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
textreferences: a requirement that Engineer B insert an addendum or an amendment in the brochure informing prospective clients that Engineer A would soon be leaving the firm is both impracticable and unnecessary.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.294663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Notice-Period Brochure Prospective Client Pending Departure Disclosure
type: Notice-PeriodBrochurePersonnelProspectiveClientAppraisalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period, when Engineer A had already been given termination notice.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Notice-Period Brochure Personnel Prospective Client Appraisal Constraint
constraintstatement: During the notice period after issuing the termination notice to Engineer A on November 15, 1982, Engineer B was constrained to affirmatively apprise each prospective client — during active negotiations — of Engineer A's pending termination when distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee, so that prospective clients could make informed qualification assessments.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; NSPE BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: November 15, 1982 through Engineer A's actual termination date
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.280962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure Application
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to correctly apply the two-part misrepresentation test — assessing whether the listing of Engineer A as a key employee constituted a 'pertinent fact' and whether distribution was motivated by intent to enhance qualifications — to determine the ethical status of continued brochure distribution.
casecontext: Engineer B's continued brochure distribution after issuing the termination notice and after actual termination required application of the dual-element misrepresentation test.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's obligation to evaluate the continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A against both elements of the pertinent fact test, particularly after actual termination when both elements were clearly satisfied.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.285911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure Assessment
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and well after actual termination, raising the dual-element misrepresentation question.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee must be assessed against both elements of the pertinent fact misrepresentation test: (1) whether Engineer A's departure constituted a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients, and (2) whether the continued distribution was done with intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications — both elements being required for a violation finding.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; NSPE BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 through post-termination period
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.281906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure Personnel Listing BER-82
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board applied the dual-element test to Engineer B's brochure distribution, finding that the inclusion of Engineer A's name constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts because clients may select a firm based on named engineers, and that Engineer B's awareness of the termination while continuing to distribute the brochure demonstrated the requisite intent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained by the two-prong misrepresentation test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — requiring concurrent presence of (1) misrepresentation of pertinent facts (facts of clear and decisive relevance, or 'relevant and highly significant') and (2) intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications — with the Board finding both prongs satisfied: Engineer A's name was a pertinent fact because clients may select a firm based on named engineers' presence, and Engineer B's distribution of the brochure while aware of Engineer A's termination demonstrated intent to enhance firm qualifications.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:44:10.053305+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of brochure distribution listing Engineer A as a key employee
textreferences: 'Pertinent facts' are those facts that have a clear and decisive relevance to a matter at hand.
textreferences: The facts presented in the case appear to demonstrate that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
textreferences: it is clear, therefore, that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.294979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Personnel Listing Absolute Prohibition Self-Application
type: Post-Actual-TerminationBrochurePersonnelListingAbsoluteProhibitionSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Personnel Listing Absolute Prohibition Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed the capability to recognize and self-apply the absolute prohibition on distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a current key employee after Engineer A's actual termination, understanding that post-actual-termination listing constitutes an unambiguous misrepresentation regardless of cost or intent.
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee well after Engineer A's actual termination.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's continued use of the brochure listing Engineer A 'well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A,' demonstrating the failure to apply this absolute prohibition.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:29.322759+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.285386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Absolute Prohibition
type: Post-DepartureKeyEmployeeBrochureDistributionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from distributing promotional brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination, regardless of the cost of reprinting or the fact that the brochures were previously printed, because Engineer A's actual departure constituted a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients.
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:34:06.047221+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; NSPE BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
temporalscope: From Engineer A's actual termination date onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.280769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
type: ProspectiveEngineeringServicesClientRelyingonFirmBrochure
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'reliance_type': 'Relied on brochure listing Engineer A as available key employee', 'dual_solicitation': 'Also solicited by Engineer A for his new competing firm'}
caseinvolvement: Clients of Engineer B who received the outdated brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after his termination, and who were also solicited by Engineer A for future work with his new firm.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'recipient_of_brochure_from', 'target': 'Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.261040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's Current Clients Prospective Brochure-Relying
type: Brochure-RelyingEngineeringServicesConsumer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'harm_type': 'Misled about personnel availability during firm selection', 'selection_basis': "May have selected or considered selecting firm based on Engineer A's listed presence", 'protection_right': "Right to accurate disclosure of Engineer A's pending termination during negotiations"}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B's current and prospective clients who received marketing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee, potentially making selection decisions based on Engineer A's listed availability, and who were misled both during the notice period and after Engineer A's departure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:22.962007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:22.962007+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'misled_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer
sourcetext: The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm and the selection of that firm may be based on the presence of that engineer in the firm as represented in the brochure
textreferences: Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination
textreferences: That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects
textreferences: The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm and the selection of that firm may be based on the presence of that engineer in the firm as represented in the brochure
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.266527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's continued use of brochure with Engineer A's name after Engineer A's formal termination
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
from entity text: Engineer B's continued use of brochure with Engineer A's name
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Engineer A's formal termination
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: Engineer A s formal termination
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's distribution of brochure during interim period meets Engineer B's continued use of brochure after formal termination
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
from entity text: Engineer B's distribution of brochure during interim period
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: Engineer B's continued use of brochure after formal termination
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: Engineer B s continued use of brochure after forma
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's distribution of brochure listing Engineer A as key employee during interim employment period (notice to formal termination)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: During that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees.
from entity text: Engineer B's distribution of brochure listing Engineer A as key employee
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: interim employment period (notice to formal termination)
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: interim employment period notice to formal termin
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's ethical obligation to cease using brochure starts period after Engineer A's formal dismissal
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: starts
evidence: once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely.
from entity text: Engineer B's ethical obligation to cease using brochure
owl time property: time:intervalStarts
to entity text: period after Engineer A's formal dismissal
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 start at the same time, Entity1 ends first
interval starts: period after Engineer A s formal dismissal
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's obligation to verbally disclose Engineer A's pending termination to prospective clients during interim period between termination notice and formal termination
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
from entity text: Engineer B's obligation to verbally disclose Engineer A's pending termination to prospective clients
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: interim period between termination notice and formal termination
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: interim period between termination notice and form
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's termination notice before Engineer A's formal termination
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A... Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
from entity text: Engineer B's termination notice
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's formal termination
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s formal termination
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B's termination notice to Engineer A before Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A... Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm.
from entity text: Engineer B's termination notice to Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s solicitation of Engineer B s current
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Firm-Personnel-Roster-Accuracy-Standard-Instance
type: FirmPersonnelRosterAccuracyStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Firm Personnel Roster Accuracy Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Firm Personnel Roster Accuracy Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer B's continued use of outdated brochure
usedincontext: Establishes Engineer B's obligation to update or correct the firm brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination notice was given and after actual termination occurred
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.268531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Formal Employment Termination Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_A_Right_To_Compete_Constraint
activates constraint: Honest_Representation_Constraint_For_Engineer_B
activates constraint: Post_Employment_Confidentiality_Constraint
causes state change: Employment relationship legally ends; Engineer A's duty of loyalty as employee dissolves; Engineer B's obligation to accurately represent staff composition becomes urgent and unambiguous; Engineer A gains full right to compete in the marketplace
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Maintain_Confidentiality_Of_Proprietary_Information
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Cease_Representing_Engineer_A_As_Affiliated
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Immediately_Update_All_Marketing_Materials
emergency status: medium
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Several months after November 15, 1982 (exact date unspecified)
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A's employment with Engineer B formally ends, marking a definitive shift in the legal and ethical relationship between the parties. This event resets the obligation landscape: some duties of loyalty dissolve while others, particularly around confidentiality and honest representation, persist.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

III.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Interim Employment Period Begins
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_Confidentiality_Constraint
activates constraint: Continued_Fiduciary_Duty_Constraint
activates constraint: Employer_Honest_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Non_Solicitation_During_Employment_Constraint
causes state change: A multi-month window of ethically fraught dual status is established; all actions taken during this period are subject to heightened scrutiny under professional codes; the ethical obligations of both parties are fully active and undiminished
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Both_Parties_Must_Maintain_Professional_Standards_Throughout
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Solicit_Current_Clients_During_This_Period
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Use_Confidential_Information_For_Personal_Gain
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Not_Misrepresent_Engineer_A_As_Permanent_Staff
emergency status: medium
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Shortly after November 15, 1982 through formal termination date
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: medium
comment: Following the termination notice, Engineer A continues working for Engineer B for several additional months, creating an extended period of dual obligation where Engineer A is simultaneously a current employee and a prospective competitor. This period becomes the central ethical battleground of the case.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Marketing-Material-Accuracy-Correction-Standard-Instance
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyCorrectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Marketing Material Accuracy Correction Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Marketing Material Accuracy Correction Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer B's failure to correct promotional materials
usedincontext: Requires Engineer B to take expeditious steps to correct or update the brochure once Engineer A's departure was known, rather than continuing to distribute materials listing Engineer A as a key employee
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.262749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Misrepresentation-in-Business-Dealings-Standard-Instance
type: MisrepresentationinBusinessDealingsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
sourcetext: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer B's continued distribution of inaccurate brochure to clients
usedincontext: Addresses Engineer B's implicit misrepresentation to clients that Engineer A remained a key employee of the firm, when in fact Engineer A had been terminated or was under termination notice
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.262948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Misrepresentation Of Staff Status
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_Trust_Preservation_Constraint
activates constraint: Honest_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Deception_Prohibition_Constraint
causes state change: Third parties are now operating with false information about Engineer B's firm; Engineer B's credibility and professional integrity are at risk; an ongoing obligation to correct the record is triggered immediately
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Immediately_Correct_Or_Withdraw_Misleading_Brochures
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Not_Distribute_Additional_Copies_Of_Misleading_Material
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Should_Notify_Affected_Clients_Of_Pending_Staff_Change
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During interim employment period following November 15, 1982
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: high
comment: As a result of Engineer B distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period, clients and prospective clients receive materially false information about the firm's personnel. This misrepresentation affects third-party decision-making and constitutes a breach of honest representation obligations.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-I.4
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section I.4 (Faithful Agent and Trustee)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
textreferences: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
textreferences: it is concluded that Engineer A violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Invoked to establish Engineer A's duty of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure to employer Engineer B while still employed; grounds the finding that soliciting current clients without disclosure violates the faithful agent obligation
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.267025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II.5.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section II.5.a (Misrepresentation in Solicitation Materials)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section II.5.a. of the Code specifically states that brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates . . . with the intent and purpose of enhancing their qualifications and their work.
textreferences: Section II.5.a. of the Code specifically states that brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates . . . with the intent and purpose of enhancing their qualifications and their work.
textreferences: That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to evaluate Engineer B's conduct in distributing a promotional brochure listing Engineer A as a firm member after Engineer A had been given notice of termination and after Engineer A had left the firm; grounds the finding that Engineer B misrepresented pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.267848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III.3.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section III.3.a (Material Misrepresentation and Misleading Statements)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section III.3.a. states in part that 'Engineers shall avoid use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact necessary to keep statements from being misleading; statements intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation....'
textreferences: Section III.3.a. states in part that 'Engineers shall avoid use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact necessary to keep statements from being misleading; statements intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation....'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Referenced as additional guidance on Engineer B's obligation to avoid material misrepresentation or omission in promotional materials; Board uses it to calibrate the practical disclosure obligation during the interim termination period
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.268043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III.4.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section III.4.a (Disclosure of Specialized Knowledge)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Assuming that in fact Engineer A had gained such knowledge and then sought such work without full disclosure to the employer, Engineer B, it appears that Engineer A would have violated Section III.4.a. of the Code.
textreferences: A related question under the facts of this case is whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: Assuming that in fact Engineer A had gained such knowledge and then sought such work without full disclosure to the employer, Engineer B, it appears that Engineer A would have violated Section III.4.a. of the Code.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to assess whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure by using particular and specialized knowledge gained during employment to seek work without full disclosure to employer Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.267486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III.7
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section III.7 (Questionable Methods of Competition)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:25.682284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'
textreferences: Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'
textreferences: we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III.7.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to determine whether Engineer A's covert solicitation of current clients while still employed constituted competition by questionable methods
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.267236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Engineer-A-Solicitation
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
textreferences: Engineer A notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
usedby: Engineer A in deciding how to notify clients of planned new firm
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer A's notification to Engineer B's clients while still employed was ethically permissible, particularly regarding solicitation and competition conduct
version: Current at time of case (1982)
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Post-Employment-Client-Solicitation-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: Post-EmploymentClientSolicitationEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Post-Employment Client Solicitation Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:38.100339+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Post-Employment Client Solicitation Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients
usedincontext: Provides normative grounding for evaluating Engineer A's conduct in notifying Engineer B's clients of intent to start a new firm while still employed and under termination notice
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Post-Termination Brochure Continuation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Employer/Principal Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Clients might select the firm based on Engineer A's listed presence, creating an expectation that could not be met
foreseen unintended effects: Prospective clients would be affirmatively misled into believing Engineer A remained a key employee of the firm
foreseen unintended effects: Reputational harm to Engineer A through unauthorized use of name in firm promotional materials
guided by principle text: Avoidance of misrepresentation in promotional materials
guided by principle text: Honesty and truthfulness in all professional representations
guided by principle text: Protection of public and client trust in engineering profession
guided by principle text: Respect for former employee's professional identity
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Continue promoting the firm to prospective clients using existing printed materials to secure future business, avoiding the cost and effort of reprinting updated brochures
requires capability text: Knowledge of professional obligations regarding accuracy of promotional materials
requires capability text: Managerial authority to withdraw or replace existing brochures
requires capability text: Understanding that personnel misrepresentation in promotional materials violates the Code
temporal marker: Well after Engineer A's formal termination
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid statements containing material misrepresentation or omitting material facts (Section III.3.a.)
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid statements intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation (Section III.3.a.)
violates obligation text: Duty to cease using brochure containing Engineer A's name immediately upon formal termination
violates obligation text: Prohibition on misrepresenting pertinent facts in promotional materials with intent to enhance qualifications (Section II.5.a.)
within competence: true
comment: Well after Engineer A had been formally terminated, Engineer B continued to distribute the promotional brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee without correction or withdrawal. The Board found this to be a clear and unambiguous ethical violation constituting misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Post-Termination Brochure Continuation (Action 5) → Compounded Misrepresentation Established (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Well after Engineer A had been formally terminated, Engineer B continued to distribute promotional brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee, compounding the misrepresentation beyond the notice period into a sustained and unambiguous ethical violation
cause: Post-Termination Brochure Continuation (Action 5)
counterfactual: Had Engineer B ceased brochure distribution upon Engineer A's formal termination, the misrepresentation would have been limited to the notice period and could potentially have been characterized as administrative oversight rather than sustained deception
effect: Compounded Misrepresentation Established (Event 6)
necessary factors: Brochures continuing to list Engineer A as current key staff after employment ended
necessary factors: Engineer B's continued deliberate distribution of outdated brochures post-termination
necessary factors: Formal termination of Engineer A (Event 5) creating definitive end of employment
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Continued distribution of brochures listing a formally terminated employee as current key staff was alone sufficient to establish compounded, unambiguous misrepresentation with no defensible justification
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Proprietary Knowledge Use Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Employee Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Breach of trust relationship with employer
foreseen unintended effects: Competitive harm to Engineer B through use of confidential knowledge
foreseen unintended effects: Misappropriation of employer's proprietary client information
guided by principle text: Faithful agency to employer
guided by principle text: Full disclosure before using employer's proprietary knowledge for personal gain
guided by principle text: Protection of confidential information
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Gain competitive advantage in soliciting Engineer B's current clients by leveraging specialized knowledge of client needs, projects, or circumstances acquired through employment
requires capability text: Ability to distinguish general professional knowledge from employer-specific proprietary information
requires capability text: Judgment about disclosure requirements when using specialized knowledge
requires capability text: Understanding of confidentiality obligations under the Code
temporal marker: During interim employment period, concurrent with client solicitation activities
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Duty not to use proprietary information, trade secrets, or confidential client information without full disclosure to employer (Section III.4.a.)
violates obligation text: Duty of disclosure to all interested parties regarding use of specialized knowledge
violates obligation text: Duty of loyalty and good faith to employer (Section I.4.)
within competence: true
comment: During the period of soliciting Engineer B's current clients while still employed, Engineer A faced the decision of whether to disclose to Engineer B any specialized or proprietary client knowledge being leveraged in solicitation efforts. The facts do not confirm whether such knowledge was used, but the Board analyzed this as a distinct ethical decision point.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.259200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Proprietary Knowledge Use Decision Action 4 → Current Client Solicitation Action 2 - Ethical Aggravation
type: CausalChain
causal language: During the period of soliciting Engineer B's current clients while still employed, Engineer A faced a decision about whether to use Engineer B's proprietary knowledge, with use of such knowledge materially aggravating the ethical breach of the underlying solicitation
cause: Proprietary Knowledge Use Decision (Action 4)
counterfactual: Without access to Engineer B's proprietary knowledge, Engineer A's solicitation would have been less informed and less effective; the ethical breach would have been limited to the solicitation itself rather than also encompassing misappropriation
effect: Current Client Solicitation (Action 2). Ethical Aggravation
necessary factors: Engineer A's access to Engineer B's proprietary information through employment
necessary factors: Engineer A's active solicitation of Engineer B's clients creating context for potential proprietary knowledge use
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional decision on whether to deploy that knowledge in solicitation
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Use of proprietary knowledge during client solicitation while still employed, combined with the solicitation itself, was sufficient to constitute a compounded ethical violation involving both conflict of interest and misappropriation of employer resources
within agent control: true

Proprietary Knowledge Use Decision (Action 4) → Current Client Solicitation (Action 2) — Ethical Aggravation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158475
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to notify clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start a firm and would appreciate being considered for future work while still in the employ of Engineer B?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.156937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Should Engineer A have disclosed to Engineer B that Engineer A was actively soliciting Engineer B's clients during the notice period, and does the failure to make that disclosure independently constitute a breach of the faithful agent duty regardless of whether the solicitation itself was ethical?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the fact that Engineer B initiated the termination rather than Engineer A resigning alter the ethical calculus for Engineer A's pre-departure client solicitation, and should the Board have established a distinct ethical standard for employer-initiated versus employee-initiated departures?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: What obligation, if any, did Engineer A have to proactively notify Engineer B's prospective clients that Engineer A's name appearing in Engineer B's brochure was misleading after Engineer A's actual termination, and does Engineer A share ethical responsibility for the misrepresentation perpetuated by Engineer B's continued brochure use?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Did Engineer A's use of specialized knowledge about Engineer B's clients—gained exclusively through employment—to target those specific clients for solicitation constitute an independent ethical violation beyond the mere act of solicitation, and should the Board have addressed this as a separate question?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee in view of the fact that Engineer B had given Engineer A a notice of termination?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection—which affirms clients' absolute right to choose their engineer—conflict with the Faithful Agent Trustee Duty owed to Engineer B, given that Engineer A's solicitation could be framed as merely informing clients of a choice they are entitled to make freely?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the At-Will Employment Symmetry principle—invoked to justify Engineer A's solicitation on the grounds that Engineer B could terminate Engineer A at will—conflict with the Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition, and can at-will reciprocity ever serve as an ethical justification for conduct that would otherwise violate loyalty obligations?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility principle—which allows Engineer B to continue distributing the brochure provided oral disclosure is made—conflict with the Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation, which would seem to require correction of the written record rather than mere verbal qualification during negotiations?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility principle—which would allow Engineer A to solicit Engineer B's clients after departure—conflict with the Specialized Knowledge Constraint, given that the very client relationships and project knowledge enabling post-departure solicitation were acquired exclusively during employment, making the temporal boundary between permissible and impermissible solicitation ethically unstable?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.157093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a categorical duty of loyalty to Engineer B by soliciting Engineer B's current clients during the notice period, regardless of whether Engineer B had initiated the termination and regardless of whether no written non-compete agreement existed?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's pre-departure solicitation of Engineer B's clients produce net harm across all affected parties — Engineer B's business goodwill, the clients' informed decision-making, and the broader engineering profession's trustworthiness — that outweighed any benefit Engineer A gained from early competitive positioning?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional virtue of honesty when distributing a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period without proactively disclosing Engineer A's pending termination to prospective clients, and does the Board's conditional permissibility ruling adequately capture the character standard expected of a firm principal?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer B's continued post-termination distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee constitute a categorical misrepresentation of fact that violates a duty of honesty owed simultaneously to prospective clients, to Engineer A whose professional identity is being exploited without consent, and to the engineering profession at large?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's pre-departure solicitation of Engineer B's clients have been ethically permissible if Engineer A had first fully disclosed to Engineer B the intent to solicit those specific clients, obtained Engineer B's acknowledgment, and notified the clients openly rather than covertly — thereby satisfying the faithful agent duty while still exercising competitive mobility rights?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: Would the Board's ethical assessment of Engineer A's solicitation conduct have differed if Engineer A had waited until after actual termination to contact Engineer B's former clients, and does the timing of Engineer B's termination notice create a morally relevant asymmetry that should have shifted the ethical balance in Engineer A's favor?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would Engineer B's distribution of the brochure during the notice period have been unconditionally ethical — rather than conditionally ethical — if Engineer B had proactively issued an errata sheet or written addendum to all prospective clients disclosing Engineer A's pending departure at the time of each brochure distribution, rather than relying on oral disclosure only during active negotiations?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Would Engineer B's post-termination brochure distribution have remained ethically impermissible even if Engineer A had been listed as a non-key, peripheral employee rather than a key employee, and does the Board's absolute prohibition on post-termination brochure use depend on the materiality of the listed employee's role to prospective clients' contracting decisions?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.161808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.159184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_30
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_31
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.160250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.158618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.164995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.165024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:07:59.165052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Termination Notice Issuance
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Employer/Principal Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A might begin seeking alternative employment immediately
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A might contact current clients during the notice period
foreseen unintended effects: Firm brochures listing Engineer A as key employee would become inaccurate
fulfills obligation text: Acted within managerial authority to make staffing decisions
fulfills obligation text: Provided advance notice of termination to employee
guided by principle text: Fair treatment of employees
guided by principle text: Honest communication within the firm
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Manage firm staffing in response to reduced workload by providing advance notice of termination to Engineer A
requires capability text: Awareness of promotional material contents
requires capability text: Knowledge of firm obligations under professional code
requires capability text: Managerial judgment
temporal marker: November 15, 1982
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B formally notified Engineer A of pending termination due to lack of work, triggering a chain of ethical obligations for both parties. This was a deliberate managerial decision with foreseeable consequences for firm operations and personnel conduct.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.258909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Termination Notice Issuance (Action 1) → Employment Termination Notice Received (Event 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B formally notified Engineer A of pending termination due to lack of work, triggering a chain of subsequent decisions and events
cause: Termination Notice Issuance (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without the formal termination notice, Engineer A would have had no legal or ethical trigger to begin independent client solicitation or practice setup; subsequent events would not have occurred in this form
effect: Employment Termination Notice Received (Event 1)
necessary factors: Engineer B's decision to issue formal termination notice
necessary factors: Existence of employment relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B
necessary factors: Stated justification of lack of work as grounds for termination
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Formal issuance of termination notice alone was sufficient to create the legal and ethical context shift for Engineer A
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.296103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591854+00:00
value: Solicitation of clients without active contracts is resolved as permissible under free and open competition principles, even when conducted during the notice period following employer-initiated termination.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592187+00:00
value: The Board held that the employer-initiated termination does not license covert solicitation of current clients; the faithful agent duty persists until actual departure and requires disclosure of competitive activities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592374+00:00
value: Loyalty prevails over the mobility interest during the active employment period; the termination notice shifts some moral responsibility but does not extinguish the loyalty duty.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592268+00:00
value: The Board held that the duty of disclosure is non-negotiable during active employment; the employer-initiated termination does not waive the employee's disclosure obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592457+00:00
value: The Board treated the specialized knowledge issue as conditional on facts not established, but affirmed that disclosure would be required; the employment relationship amplifies rather than diminishes the constraint.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590677+00:00
value: The Board distinguished Case 77-11 on two grounds — current vs. former clients, and active employment vs. post-departure — holding that both distinctions independently support a finding of violation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590624+00:00
value: The Board held that the employer-initiated termination does not license covert solicitation of current clients; the faithful agent duty persists until actual departure and requires disclosure of competitive activities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590728+00:00
value: The employer-initiated nature of the termination shifts the ethical balance toward permitting solicitation, provided no active contracts are supplanted and no confidential knowledge is exploited.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590780+00:00
value: The Board treated the specialized knowledge issue as conditional on facts not established, but affirmed that disclosure would be required; the employment relationship amplifies rather than diminishes the constraint.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.589551+00:00
value: The Board held that the employer-initiated termination does not license covert solicitation of current clients; the faithful agent duty persists until actual departure and requires disclosure of competitive activities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591294+00:00
value: The employer-initiated nature of the termination shifts the ethical balance toward permitting solicitation, provided no active contracts are supplanted and no confidential knowledge is exploited.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590200+00:00
value: The Board held that the employer-initiated termination does not license covert solicitation of current clients; the faithful agent duty persists until actual departure and requires disclosure of competitive activities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.589826+00:00
value: Loyalty prevails over the mobility interest during the active employment period; the termination notice shifts some moral responsibility but does not extinguish the loyalty duty.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591345+00:00
value: Loyalty prevails over the mobility interest during the active employment period; the termination notice shifts some moral responsibility but does not extinguish the loyalty duty.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592563+00:00
value: The constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general competition prohibition; absent evidence of specialized knowledge exploitation, the solicitation remains within permissible bounds.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590912+00:00
value: The constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general competition prohibition; absent evidence of specialized knowledge exploitation, the solicitation remains within permissible bounds.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590992+00:00
value: The Board resolved the tension by affirming Case 77-11's protection of post-departure mobility while carving out the pre-departure current-client solicitation scenario as a distinct and prohibited category.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590858+00:00
value: The constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general competition prohibition; absent evidence of specialized knowledge exploitation, the solicitation remains within permissible bounds.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.589731+00:00
value: The Board held that the duty of disclosure is non-negotiable during active employment; the employer-initiated termination does not waive the employee's disclosure obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590254+00:00
value: The Board held that the duty of disclosure is non-negotiable during active employment; the employer-initiated termination does not waive the employee's disclosure obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590331+00:00
value: The Board held that the faithful agent breach and the competition methods violation are co-extensive in this case; the same conduct violates both provisions.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.589901+00:00
value: The Board treated the specialized knowledge issue as conditional on facts not established, but affirmed that disclosure would be required; the employment relationship amplifies rather than diminishes the constraint.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591412+00:00
value: The constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general competition prohibition; absent evidence of specialized knowledge exploitation, the solicitation remains within permissible bounds.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.589985+00:00
value: The constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general competition prohibition; absent evidence of specialized knowledge exploitation, the solicitation remains within permissible bounds.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591465+00:00
value: The constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general competition prohibition; absent evidence of specialized knowledge exploitation, the solicitation remains within permissible bounds.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591782+00:00
value: The employer-initiated nature of the termination shifts the ethical balance toward permitting solicitation, provided no active contracts are supplanted and no confidential knowledge is exploited.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591925+00:00
value: Both elements are more readily satisfied post-actual-termination than during the notice period; the dual-element test provides a graduated analysis that distinguishes the two temporal phases of Engineer B's conduct.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592010+00:00
value: No competing principle justifies continued use of the inaccurate brochure after actual termination; the correction obligation is absolute at this stage.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591712+00:00
value: No competing principle justifies continued use of the inaccurate brochure after actual termination; the correction obligation is absolute at this stage.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591238+00:00
value: No competing principle justifies continued use of the inaccurate brochure after actual termination; the correction obligation is absolute at this stage.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592760+00:00
value: Both elements are more readily satisfied post-actual-termination than during the notice period; the dual-element test provides a graduated analysis that distinguishes the two temporal phases of Engineer B's conduct.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592644+00:00
value: The Board distinguished the notice period (disclosure during negotiations required but reprinting not mandated) from the post-departure period (continued use absolutely prohibited).

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591048+00:00
value: The Board distinguished the notice period (disclosure during negotiations required but reprinting not mandated) from the post-departure period (continued use absolutely prohibited).

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591099+00:00
value: No competing principle justifies continued use of the inaccurate brochure after actual termination; the correction obligation is absolute at this stage.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591170+00:00
value: The conditional permissibility is defeated by Engineer B's failure to apprise clients of the changed employment status during active negotiations, transforming the notice-period distribution into a misrepresentation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590117+00:00
value: Both elements are more readily satisfied post-actual-termination than during the notice period; the dual-element test provides a graduated analysis that distinguishes the two temporal phases of Engineer B's conduct.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591658+00:00
value: The Board rejected the argument that reprinting costs or impracticability excuse the misrepresentation; the intent-and-purpose element was satisfied by Engineer B's awareness of the termination and continued distribution.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.591582+00:00
value: Both elements are more readily satisfied post-actual-termination than during the notice period; the dual-element test provides a graduated analysis that distinguishes the two temporal phases of Engineer B's conduct.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590059+00:00
value: The Board distinguished the notice period (disclosure during negotiations required but reprinting not mandated) from the post-departure period (continued use absolutely prohibited).

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590489+00:00
value: No competing principle justifies continued use of the inaccurate brochure after actual termination; the correction obligation is absolute at this stage.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.590564+00:00
value: The Board held that the post-departure distribution is a clear violation without qualification; the intent-and-purpose element is satisfied by Engineer B's awareness as the terminating party.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:06:57.592106+00:00
value: The disclosure obligation is not discharged by the practical difficulty of reprinting; a corrective cover letter or errata sheet during active negotiations would have satisfied the obligation.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed during the notice period creates tension with the loyalty obligation owed to the current employer, though this tension is substantially mitigated by the employer-initiat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed during the notice period raises the question of whether this crosses the boundary from permissible planning into prohibited promotional negotiation; the employer-initiat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's notification to Engineer B's clients that he was starting a new firm and seeking future work is permissible to the extent those clients had no active, executed contracts with Engineer B for specific projects, because solicitati

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having received an employer-initiated termination notice citing lack of work, exercised the reciprocal mobility right to begin soliciting prospective clients for a new engineering firm while still serving out the notice period.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon receiving the termination notice and then upon actual departure, bore an obligation to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B ceased representing Engineer A as a current key employee in brochures distributed to pr

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A gained particular and specialized knowledge about specific client projects during employment with Engineer B, Engineer A's solicitation of those specific clients for substantially similar work would require the consent of Engi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination violates the fundamental professional obligation of honesty by presenting a false picture of the firm's personnel t

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B bore an affirmative, ongoing obligation to take proactive steps — errata sheets, cover letters, reprints — to ensure that brochures listing Engineer A remained accurate, and the failure to take any such measures during both the n

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, having issued a termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982, bore an obligation to apprise prospective clients of Engineer A's changed employment status whenever distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employ

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of the previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period (November 1982 through actual termination) is conditionally permissible only if Engineer B provided contemp

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee must be assessed against both elements: (1) whether Engineer A's listing constitutes a 'pertinent fact' to prospective clients' selection decisions, an

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Once Engineer A was actually terminated, Engineer B had actual knowledge that the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee was inaccurate; Engineer B's continued use of the brochure 'well after' actual termination without expeditious c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients — not former clients — while still employed, distinguishing the case from BER Case 77-11 where post-departure solicitation of former clients was permissible.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed during the notice period creates tension with the loyalty obligation owed to the current employer, though this tension is substantially mitigated by the employer-initiat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to Engineer B as employer required refraining from covert competitive solicitation of Engineer B's current clients during the employment period, and required disclosure of any such activity.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's failure to disclose competitive solicitation activities to Engineer B while still employed constituted an independent violation of the duty of disclosure inherent in the faithful agent relationship.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, while still employed by Engineer B and having received a termination notice, solicited Engineer B's current clients without informing Engineer B, thereby breaching the faithful agent and trustee duty of loyalty, good faith, and

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, while still employed by Engineer B and having received a termination notice, solicited Engineer B's current clients without informing Engineer B, thereby breaching the faithful agent and trustee duty of loyalty, good faith, and

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to Engineer B as employer required refraining from covert competitive solicitation of Engineer B's current clients during the employment period, and required disclosure of any such activity.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while employed constituted questionable methods of competition under Section III.7, because Engineer A knew or should have known the conduct was ethically problematic even if

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having received an employer-initiated termination notice citing lack of work, exercised the reciprocal mobility right to begin soliciting prospective clients for a new engineering firm while still serving out the notice period.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A gained particular and specialized knowledge about specific client projects during employment with Engineer B, Engineer A's solicitation of those specific clients for substantially similar work would require the consent of Engi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A gained particular and specialized knowledge about specific client projects during employment with Engineer B, Engineer A's solicitation of those specific clients for substantially similar work would require the consent of Engi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board conditionally analyzed that if Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge about Engineer B's clients' projects and then sought that work without full disclosure to Engineer B, a violation of Section III.4.a would r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon receiving the termination notice and upon actual departure, was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's marketing materials no longer listed him as a current key employee, including notifying Enginee

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon receiving the termination notice and upon actual departure, was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's marketing brochure no longer listed Engineer A as a current key employee, including notifying E

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination violates the fundamental professional obligation of honesty by presenting a false picture of the firm's personnel t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination notice and after actual departure violated the honesty obligation by creating a false impression of the firm's personnel composition to prospectiv

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B bore an affirmative, ongoing obligation to take proactive steps — errata sheets, cover letters, reprints — to ensure that brochures listing Engineer A remained accurate, and the failure to take any such measures during both the n

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B bore an affirmative, ongoing obligation to take proactive steps — errata sheets, cover letters, reprints — to ensure that brochures listing Engineer A remained accurate, and the failure to take any such measures during both the n

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B bore an affirmative, ongoing obligation to take proactive steps — errata sheets, cover letters, reprints — to ensure that brochures listing Engineer A remained accurate, and the failure to take any such measures during both the n

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, having issued a termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982, bore an obligation to apprise prospective clients of Engineer A's changed employment status whenever distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: During the period between Engineer A's termination notice and actual departure, Engineer B was obligated to inform prospective clients during active negotiations of Engineer A's pending departure, rather than allowing the brochure to create

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, having issued a termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982, bore an obligation to apprise prospective clients of Engineer A's changed employment status whenever distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Once Engineer A had formally departed, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee constituted an unambiguous misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance qualifications, with no per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Once Engineer A had formally departed, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee constituted an unambiguous misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance qualifications, with no per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Once Engineer A had formally departed, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee constituted an unambiguous misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance qualifications, with no per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee must be assessed against both elements: (1) whether Engineer A's listing constitutes a 'pertinent fact' to prospective clients' selection decisions, an

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee — both during the notice period and after actual departure — satisfied both elements of the dual-element test: (1) Engineer A's name was a pertinent fact

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Once Engineer A was actually terminated, Engineer B had actual knowledge that the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee was inaccurate; Engineer B's continued use of the brochure 'well after' actual termination without expeditious c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Once Engineer A was actually terminated, Engineer B had actual knowledge that the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee was inaccurate; Engineer B's continued use of the brochure 'well after' actual termination without expeditious c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee must be assessed against both elements: (1) whether Engineer A's listing constitutes a 'pertinent fact' to prospective clients' selection decisions, an

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B bore an affirmative, ongoing obligation to take proactive steps — errata sheets, cover letters, reprints — to ensure that brochures listing Engineer A remained accurate, and the failure to take any such measures during both the n

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's continued distribution of the previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period (November 1982 through actual termination) is conditionally permissible only if Engineer B provided contemp

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination notice and after actual departure violated the honesty obligation by creating a false impression of the firm's personnel composition to prospectiv

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board explicitly affirmed that no restraint exists on a client's absolute right to select the engineer of their choice, ensuring that the ethical constraints on Engineer A's solicitation methods do not translate into restrictions on cli

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's notification to Engineer B's clients that he was starting a new firm and seeking future work is permissible to the extent those clients had no active, executed contracts with Engineer B for specific projects, because solicitati

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that an engineer who severs all ties with an employer and then seeks to contact the employer's clients to offer engineering services does not violate the Code — preserving the engineer's mobility right — while simultaneou

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that an engineer who severs all ties with an employer and then seeks to contact the employer's clients to offer engineering services does not violate the Code — preserving the engineer's mobility right — while simultaneou

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon receiving the termination notice and upon actual departure, was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's marketing materials no longer listed him as a current key employee, including notifying Enginee

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon receiving the termination notice and upon actual departure, was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's marketing brochure no longer listed Engineer A as a current key employee, including notifying E

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from competing with Engineer B through questionable methods — specifically, covertly soliciting Engineer B's current clients without disclosure while still employed — conduct that Engineer A knew or shoul

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge about Engineer B's clients' projects during employment, Engineer A was obligated to make full disclosure to Engineer B before using that specialized knowledge in competitive soli

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from competing for any specific projects on which he had gained particular and specialized knowledge during his employment with Engineer B, recognizing that while general professional skills are freely po

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the listing of Engineer A as a 'key employee' in the firm's promotional brochure accurately reflected Engineer A's current employment status, recognizing that prospective clients reasonably rely on su

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing materials — including the firm brochure — to ensure they remained accurate and not deceptive as personnel changed, and this ongoing obligation was violated

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to promptly remove Engineer A from all firm marketing materials upon Engineer A's actual termination, and to refrain from distributing any materials listing Engineer A as a current key employee after that date, rega

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that Engineer A's decision to depart and establish a competing firm — even while still employed during the notice period — raised no general ethical proscription under the NSPE Code, and that any ethica

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters accompanying distribution, or strike-outs on existing copies — rather than continuing to d

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to take reasonable proactive steps to ensure that the firm's printed brochures remained accurate and up-to-date, including implementing processes for timely review and updating of printed materials when personnel ch

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to take proactive steps to ensure that the firm's printed promotional brochure remained accurate as to personnel listings, including anticipating the foreseeable inaccuracy created by Engineer A's pending departure

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to evaluate the continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee against both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) whether Engineer A's status as a key employee was p

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the firm's promotional brochure satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — that it did not misrepresent pertinent facts (element 1) with inte

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was absolutely obligated to cease distributing any promotional materials listing Engineer A as a current key employee after Engineer A was actually terminated, regardless of whether the materials were previously printed, and this

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was absolutely obligated to cease distributing any brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee immediately upon Engineer A's formal departure from the firm.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated, upon issuing the termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982, to take affirmative steps — including errata sheets, cover letters, or verbal disclosure — to apprise prospective clients receiving the firm's bro

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated, during active negotiations with prospective clients occurring between the date of Engineer A's termination notice and Engineer A's actual departure, to inform those prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to take expeditious corrective action upon receiving actual knowledge — at the moment of issuing the termination notice — that the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee was or would imminently become inaccur

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to take expeditious corrective action to eliminate any false impression created by the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee — even if the initial distribution during the notice period was inadvertent or log

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of whether continued listing of Engineer A as a key employee in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact, considering whether Engineer A was highli

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from covertly soliciting Engineer B's current clients for competing professional services while still employed by Engineer B during the notice period, without disclosing such solicitation to Engineer B.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Engineer B that he was soliciting Engineer B's current clients for competing professional services while still employed during the notice period.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain faithful agent conduct toward Engineer B during the notice period — continuing to perform assigned duties, refraining from using employer resources for his new firm, and conducting client solicitation ho

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain faithful agent conduct toward Engineer B during the notice period, including refraining from covertly diverting Engineer B's current client relationships to his new firm and from using his employment pos

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having received an employer-initiated termination notice from Engineer B on November 15, 1982, was obligated to recognize that soliciting Engineer B's clients for future work with his new firm was ethically permissible under the

Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection Affirmed as Absolute
type: ClientAutonomyinEngineeringServiceProviderSelection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's clients' right to engage Engineer A's new firm
balancingwith: Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board explicitly affirmed that no restraint exists on a client's absolute right to select the engineer of their choice, ensuring that the ethical constraints on Engineer A's solicitation methods do not translate into restrictions on client freedom to engage whomever they wish.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Client autonomy in engineer selection is an absolute right that the ethics code does not restrict; the ethical violations concern the methods of solicitation, not the client's ultimate choice.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
sourcetext: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice.
tensionresolution: The Board carefully separated the engineer's conduct (regulated) from the client's choice (unregulated), affirming that ethical constraints on solicitation methods do not limit client freedom.
textreferences: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice.
textreferences: We have often held that (the Code) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.290176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Active Client Solicitation During Continued Employment
type: ActiveClientSolicitationDuringContinuedEmploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From shortly after November 15, 1982 termination notice through the actual termination date
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
stateclass: Active Client Solicitation During Continued Employment State
subject: Engineer A's direct solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed by Engineer B
terminatedby: Engineer A's actual departure from Engineer B's firm
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
triggeringevent: Engineer A's decision to notify Engineer B's clients of plans to start a new firm immediately after receiving the termination notice
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.263676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A At-Will Professional Mobility
type: At-WillProfessionalMobilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the case, as the background condition enabling Engineer A's competitive actions
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm
stateclass: At-Will Professional Mobility State
subject: Engineer A's baseline legal and ethical freedom to establish a competing practice in the absence of a written non-compete agreement
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case timeframe
textreferences: Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm
triggeringevent: Absence of any written non-compete or restrictive covenant between Engineer A and Engineer B
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.264237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Departing Engineer Former Employer Client Solicitation Honesty
type: DepartingEngineerFormerEmployerClientSolicitationHonestyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Prior Client Relationship Leveraged in Post-Departure Competition
casecontext: Engineer A notified Engineer B's clients of his new firm and sought future work while still employed during the notice period.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Invoked Against Engineer B Brochure Misrepresentation
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Departing Engineer Former Employer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct his solicitation of Engineer B's clients honestly, accurately, and without misrepresentation of Engineer B's capabilities or prospects, refraining from using knowledge of his own impending departure as a basis for making misleading or disparaging representations about Engineer B's ability to serve those clients.
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: During and after the notice period
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.275581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Terminated
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the actual termination date onward
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer A's post-employment status following actual termination by Engineer B
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case timeframe
textreferences: well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
triggeringevent: Engineer B's actual termination of Engineer A following the notice period of several months
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.265643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Insider Client Knowledge Competitive Advantage
type: InsiderKnowledgeAdvantageState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's employment with Engineer B and into the solicitation period
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer
stateclass: Insider Knowledge Advantage State
subject: Engineer A's possession of privileged knowledge about Engineer B's clients, trade secrets, and proprietary information
terminatedby: Full disclosure to Engineer B, or cessation of use of such information
textreferences: Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer
triggeringevent: Engineer A's employment with Engineer B giving access to client information, trade secrets, and other valuable employer information
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.270361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A No Written Non-Compete Agreement
type: NoWrittenNon-CompeteAgreementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the case
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
stateclass: No Written Non-Compete Agreement State
subject: Absence of any formal written restriction on Engineer A's post-employment competitive activities vis-à-vis Engineer B's clients
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case timeframe
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
triggeringevent: No written non-compete agreement was established at the time of Engineer A's hiring or during employment
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.264642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Termination Active Employment
type: PendingTerminationNoticeActiveEmploymentContinuationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer B gave Engineer A formal notice of termination through Engineer A's actual cessation of employment
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's firm clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients
stateclass: Pending Termination Notice Active Employment Continuation State
subject: Engineer A's employment status with Engineer B's firm
terminatedby: Engineer A's formal departure from Engineer B's firm
textreferences: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination by Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A
triggeringevent: Engineer B formally notifying Engineer A of forthcoming termination
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.265863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Termination Notice Active Employment Continuation
type: PendingTerminationNoticeActiveEmploymentContinuationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From November 15, 1982 (termination notice date) through the actual termination date several months later
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
stateclass: Pending Termination Notice Active Employment Continuation State
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with Engineer B during the notice period
terminatedby: Actual termination of Engineer A by Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
triggeringevent: Engineer B's November 15, 1982 notification to Engineer A of forthcoming termination due to lack of work
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.263380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Client Relationship Leveraged in Post-Departure Competition
type: PriorClientRelationshipLeveragedinPost-DepartureCompetitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From November 15, 1982 notification onward, persisting into post-termination period
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
stateclass: Prior Client Relationship Leveraged in Post-Departure Competition State
subject: Engineer A's use of professional relationships developed during employment with Engineer B to solicit those clients for a new competing firm
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case timeframe
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
triggeringevent: Engineer A's direct notification to Engineer B's clients of plans to establish a competing firm
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.264875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Three-Party Departure Interest Balancing
type: Three-PartyEngineerDepartureInterestBalancingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From November 15, 1982 through and beyond Engineer A's actual termination
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
stateclass: Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing State
subject: The competing interests of Engineer A (professional mobility), Engineer B (client goodwill), and Engineer B's clients (choice of engineer) arising from Engineer A's departure and competitive solicitation
terminatedby: Resolution of competitive engagement questions between Engineer A's new firm and Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
triggeringevent: Engineer B's termination notice and Engineer A's immediate decision to solicit Engineer B's clients
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.264015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Tripartite Interest Balancing Departure Conduct
type: TripartiteInterestBalancingDepartureConductSelf-AssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Three-Party Departure Interest Balancing
casecontext: Engineer A solicited Engineer B's clients immediately upon receiving the termination notice while still employed, raising questions about the fairness and equity of the solicitation timing and method.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection Affirmed as Absolute
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Tripartite Interest Balancing Departure Conduct Self-Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to evaluate his departure-related conduct — including the timing and manner of client solicitation — by explicitly balancing the client's interest in retaining the engineer of its choice, his own interest in professional autonomy and career mobility, and Engineer B's interest in maintaining business goodwill and client continuity, ensuring that the method of departure and subsequent competition was fair and equitable to all concerned parties.
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: From receipt of termination notice through establishment of new firm
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.275306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition Boundary Applied to Engineer A Solicitation
type: Pre-DeparturePromotionalNegotiationProhibitionWithLiteralBoundary
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's client notifications during the notice period from November 1982 through actual termination
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Client-Initiated Departure Moral Responsibility Shift Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed during the notice period raises the question of whether this crosses the boundary from permissible planning into prohibited promotional negotiation; the employer-initiated termination context and the absence of active contract supplanting are relevant to where the literal boundary falls.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on pre-departure promotional negotiation applies with reduced force when departure is employer-compelled; however, active solicitation (notifying clients and requesting future work consideration) likely crosses the threshold from mere planning into actionable promotional effort, making this a borderline application of the principle.
invokedby: Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
principleclass: Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition With Literal Boundary
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work. Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
tensionresolution: The termination-initiated context and the absence of active contract supplanting mitigate but do not fully eliminate the concern; the ethical analysis turns on whether Engineer B's clients had active contracts at the time of solicitation.
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.269302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
type: Current-ClientSolicitationDuringActiveEmploymentProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's client contact activity during the notice period
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer Solicitation Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients — not former clients — while still employed, distinguishing the case from BER Case 77-11 where post-departure solicitation of former clients was permissible.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The current/former client distinction is ethically decisive: soliciting current employer clients while employed crosses the line that post-departure solicitation of former clients does not.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Principle
sourcetext: In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them. (2) Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
tensionresolution: The Board distinguished Case 77-11 on two grounds — current vs. former clients, and active employment vs. post-departure — holding that both distinctions independently support a finding of violation.
textreferences: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
textreferences: In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.
textreferences: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.288061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
type: Brochure-MisrepresentedDepartingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation Applied to Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer A Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction
has obligation: Engineer A Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction BER-82
attributes: {'departure_type': 'Employer-initiated termination (lack of work)', 'misrepresentation_duration': 'During notice period and after actual termination', 'brochure_content': "Listed as key employee of Engineer B's firm"}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A's name and status as a key employee continued to appear in Engineer B's marketing brochures both during the notice period and after actual termination, misrepresenting his availability to prospective clients.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'name_misused_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of', 'target': "Engineer B's marketing brochure"}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.260615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction
type: DepartedEngineerFirmBrochureCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's name and status as a key employee continued to appear in Engineer B's marketing brochures both during the notice period and after actual termination, potentially misrepresenting Engineer A's current affiliation to prospective clients.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, upon receiving the termination notice and upon actual departure, to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's marketing materials no longer listed him as a current key employee, including notifying Engineer B of the need to update materials and, if necessary, demanding correction of the continued misrepresentation of his employment status.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: From receipt of termination notice (November 15, 1982) through cessation of Engineer B's brochure distribution
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.278106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction BER-82
type: DepartedEngineerFirmBrochureCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's name and status as a key employee continued to appear in Engineer B's marketing brochures both during the notice period and after actual departure. Engineer A shared responsibility with Engineer B for correcting this misrepresentation by demanding correction of the brochure.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, upon receiving the termination notice and upon actual departure, was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's marketing brochure no longer listed Engineer A as a current key employee, including notifying Engineer B of the need to update materials.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination by Engineer B.
temporalscope: From receipt of termination notice through and after actual departure
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination by Engineer B.
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
textreferences: The names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.292810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee
type: Specialized-Knowledge-ExploitingDepartingEmployeeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Specialized Knowledge Constraint Conditional Application to Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Employer Disclosure Before Competitive Use BER-82
has obligation: Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Constraint
attributes: {'knowledge_type': "Particular and specialized knowledge of employer's client projects", 'violation_condition': 'Conditional — if specialized knowledge was in fact exploited without disclosure', 'applicable_code': 'Section III.4.a'}
caseinvolvement: The discussion raises the conditional scenario that if Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge about specific client projects during employment and then sought that work without full disclosure to Engineer B, this would constitute an additional violation under Section III.4.a regarding use of proprietary information and specialized knowledge.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:22.962007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:22.962007+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employee_of', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'knowledge_acquired_from', 'target': "Engineer B's client projects"}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee Engineer
sourcetext: whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge
textreferences: Assuming that in fact Engineer A had gained such knowledge and then sought such work without full disclosure to the employer, Engineer B, it appears that Engineer A would have violated Section III.4.a.
textreferences: Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure
textreferences: whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.266103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Recognition
type: FreeEnterpriseDepartureRightNon-Ethical-ProscriptionRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B terminated Engineer A for lack of work; Engineer A's subsequent solicitation of Engineer B's clients for his new firm must be evaluated against specific Code provisions rather than a general loyalty presumption.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right Contextual Boundary Applied
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that Engineer A's decision to depart and establish a competing firm — even while still employed during the notice period — raised no general ethical proscription under the NSPE Code, and that any ethical constraints on Engineer A's departure conduct must be grounded in specific Code provisions rather than a general presumption against competitive departure by a terminated employee.
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
temporalscope: From issuance of termination notice onward
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.278839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance
type: MarketingMaterialOngoingAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee without updating or correcting the materials as Engineer A's employment status changed.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing materials — including the firm brochure — to ensure they remained accurate and not deceptive as personnel changed, and this ongoing obligation was violated by continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after the termination notice and actual termination.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: Continuous obligation; specifically violated from November 15, 1982 onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.278362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance
type: PrintedMarketingMaterialProactiveAccuracyAssuranceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee without implementing any proactive accuracy assurance process to address the known personnel change.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to take reasonable proactive steps to ensure that the firm's printed brochures remained accurate and up-to-date, including implementing processes for timely review and updating of printed materials when personnel changes occurred, rather than continuing to distribute outdated materials listing Engineer A as a key employee after the termination notice and actual termination.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: Ongoing obligation; specifically triggered from November 15, 1982 onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.277487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
type: PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's brochure distribution listing Engineer A as key employee after termination notice and after actual departure
balancingwith: Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee — both during the notice period and after actual departure — satisfied both elements of the dual-element test: (1) Engineer A's name was a pertinent fact decisive to client selection, and (2) Engineer B acted with intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Both prongs must be satisfied for a Section II.5.a violation; the Board found both present — the name of a key employee is clearly pertinent to client selection, and Engineer B (who initiated the termination) was well aware of the misrepresentation.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
sourcetext: Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
tensionresolution: The Board rejected the argument that reprinting costs or impracticability excuse the misrepresentation; the intent-and-purpose element was satisfied by Engineer B's awareness of the termination and continued distribution.
textreferences: Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
textreferences: Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: It is clear, therefore, that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: The facts presented in the case appear to demonstrate that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
textreferences: Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.289189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
type: QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughFaithfulAgentBreach
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's competitive solicitation methods during employment
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while employed constituted questionable methods of competition under Section III.7, because Engineer A knew or should have known the conduct was ethically problematic even if not certain it was a violation.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The 'knew or should have known' standard applies to competition ethics: an engineer cannot escape a Section III.7 violation by claiming subjective uncertainty when the conduct was objectively dubious.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Through Faithful Agent Breach
sourcetext: Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
tensionresolution: The Board held that the faithful agent breach and the competition methods violation are co-extensive in this case; the same conduct violates both provisions.
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
textreferences: It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
textreferences: Therefore, we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III. 7.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.288570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Covert Current-Client Solicitation While Employed
type: ActiveClientSolicitationDuringContinuedEmploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the period between receipt of termination notice and formal departure, while Engineer A was contacting Engineer B's current clients
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's current clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them
stateclass: Active Client Solicitation During Continued Employment State
subject: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while still employed
terminatedby: Engineer A's formal departure from Engineer B's firm
textreferences: Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them
textreferences: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services
textreferences: by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition
triggeringevent: Engineer A's decision to contact Engineer B's current clients to offer professional services without informing Engineer B
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.269610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Current-Client Covert Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition BER-82
type: Current-ClientCovertSolicitationDuringActiveEmploymentProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received a termination notice from Engineer B in November 1982 but remained employed during a notice period. During this period, Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients — not former clients — to notify them of his new firm and offer professional services, without informing Engineer B of these solicitation activities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Loyalty Obligation Tension in Engineer A Pre-Departure Solicitation
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Current-Client Covert Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from covertly soliciting Engineer B's current clients for competing professional services while still employed by Engineer B during the notice period, without disclosing such solicitation to Engineer B.
sourcetext: In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.
temporalscope: From receipt of termination notice (November 1982) through actual departure date
textreferences: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
textreferences: In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.
textreferences: it is concluded that Engineer A violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.290436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Questionable Competition Methods Covert Solicitation BER-82
type: QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughCovertEmployer-DetrimentActivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
casecontext: Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while still employed, without disclosing this activity to Engineer B, constituted questionable methods of competition under NSPE Code Section III.7, regardless of whether Engineer A was subjectively certain the conduct was unethical.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Through Covert Employer-Detriment Activity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from competing with Engineer B through questionable methods — specifically, covertly soliciting Engineer B's current clients without disclosure while still employed — conduct that Engineer A knew or should have known was problematic and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
sourcetext: Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'
temporalscope: During the notice period while still employed by Engineer B
textreferences: Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'
textreferences: Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
textreferences: It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
textreferences: Therefore, we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III. 7.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.290938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Solicitation Risk
type: SpecializedProjectKnowledgeConsentRequirementActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During and after Engineer A's employment with Engineer B, contingent on whether Engineer A possessed and used such specialized knowledge
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge
stateclass: Specialized Project Knowledge Consent Requirement Activation State
subject: Engineer A's potential use of specialized project knowledge gained while employed by Engineer B to solicit specific clients
terminatedby: Full disclosure to Engineer B of the specialized knowledge being used, or cessation of solicitation based on such knowledge
textreferences: Assuming that in fact Engineer A had gained such knowledge and then sought such work without full disclosure to the employer, Engineer B, it appears that Engineer A would have violated Section III.4.a. of the Code
textreferences: whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge
triggeringevent: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients, raising the question of whether specialized project knowledge was leveraged
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.270115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer
type: Brochure-MisrepresentingTerminatingEmployerEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer B Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction
has obligation: Engineer B Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Recognition
has obligation: Engineer B Key Employee Brochure Listing Prospective Client Non-Misleading
has obligation: Engineer B Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance
attributes: {'violation': 'Section II.5.a (misrepresentation in brochures), Section III.3.a (material misrepresentation of fact)', 'brochure_distribution': 'During notice period and after actual termination', 'interim_obligation': "Must verbally disclose Engineer A's pending termination during client negotiations", 'post_departure_obligation': "Must cease using brochure with Engineer A's name entirely after formal dismissal"}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B, as the terminating employer, distributed marketing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual departure, constituting misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications. The discussion also identifies Engineer B's affirmative obligation to verbally disclose Engineer A's pending termination to prospective clients during negotiations in the interim period.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:25:22.962007+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:25:22.962007+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'misrepresenting_to', 'target': 'Prospective Clients'}
relationships: {'type': 'terminating', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination
textreferences: Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely
textreferences: Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination
textreferences: That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.266304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Brochure Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Assessment
type: Intent-DifferentiatedMarketingMisrepresentationAssessmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the Board's analysis of Engineer B's conduct regarding the promotional brochure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
stateclass: Intent-Differentiated Marketing Misrepresentation Assessment State
subject: The two-prong ethical assessment of Engineer B's brochure containing Engineer A's name
terminatedby: Board's conclusion that both prongs (misrepresentation of pertinent facts + intent to enhance qualifications) were satisfied, constituting a Code violation
textreferences: Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist
textreferences: Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure
textreferences: the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
textreferences: the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
triggeringevent: Engineer B's distribution of a brochure naming Engineer A as a key firm member both during the notice period and after Engineer A's formal departure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.261319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment
type: Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Brochure Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Assessment
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee without conducting a pertinence assessment of whether this constituted a misrepresentation given Engineer A's changed status.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of whether continued listing of Engineer A as a key employee in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact, considering whether Engineer A was highlighted as a key employee, whether Engineer A's departure materially altered the firm's qualifications, and whether there was intent to enhance firm qualifications — rather than assuming continued distribution was permissible because the brochure had been previously printed.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: From issuance of termination notice through cessation of brochure distribution
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.277899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Utilization
type: ErrataSheetLow-CostCorrectionMechanismUtilizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing previously printed brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee rather than employing available correction mechanisms after the termination notice and actual termination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Applied to Engineer B
derived from principle: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Utilization Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters accompanying distribution, or strike-outs on existing copies — rather than continuing to distribute the inaccurate brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after the termination notice and actual termination, recognizing that the practical burden of correction was low relative to the ethical harm of continued misrepresentation.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: From issuance of termination notice onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.277008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Expeditious Marketing Material Error Correction Upon Actual Knowledge
type: ExpeditiousMarketingMaterialErrorCorrectionUponActualKnowledgeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use
casecontext: Engineer B had actual knowledge from November 15, 1982 that Engineer A would be departing, yet continued distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation Violated by Engineer B Post-Actual-Termination
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Expeditious Marketing Material Error Correction Upon Actual Knowledge Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to take expeditious corrective action upon receiving actual knowledge — at the moment of issuing the termination notice — that the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee was or would imminently become inaccurate, employing low-cost mechanisms such as errata sheets, cover letters, or reprints rather than allowing the known inaccuracy to persist uncorrected through continued brochure distribution.
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
temporalscope: From November 15, 1982 (date of termination notice) onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.277273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction
type: FirmPrincipalPost-DeparturePersonnelListingCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Post-Departure Brochure Continued Use
casecontext: Engineer B continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer A was actually terminated.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to promptly remove Engineer A from all firm marketing materials upon Engineer A's actual termination, and to refrain from distributing any materials listing Engineer A as a current key employee after that date, regardless of whether the materials were previously printed.
sourcetext: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.277704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Inadvertent Brochure Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction
type: InadvertentBrochureInaccuracyNon-CondoningExpeditiousCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing the previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, potentially treating the pre-printed nature of the materials as a logistical excuse for continued distribution.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation Violated by Engineer B Post-Actual-Termination
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Inadvertent Brochure Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to take expeditious corrective action to eliminate any false impression created by the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee — even if the initial distribution during the notice period was inadvertent or logistically constrained — recognizing that the absence of initial intent to deceive did not excuse continued distribution of materials that might mislead prospective clients about Engineer A's current availability.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: From the point at which Engineer B had reason to believe a misunderstanding might occur (i.e., from the termination notice date)
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.278653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Key Employee Brochure Listing Prospective Client Non-Misleading
type: KeyEmployeeBrochureListingProspectiveClientRelianceNon-MisleadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B distributed a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination, potentially misleading prospective clients who might select the firm based on Engineer A's listed availability.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Invoked Against Engineer B Brochure Misrepresentation
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer B Brochure
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Key Employee Brochure Listing Prospective Client Reliance Non-Misleading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the listing of Engineer A as a 'key employee' in the firm's promotional brochure accurately reflected Engineer A's current employment status, recognizing that prospective clients reasonably rely on such key employee listings when selecting engineering firms, and that continued distribution of the brochure after Engineer A's termination notice and actual termination constituted a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: From issuance of termination notice through cessation of brochure distribution
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.276524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Notice-Period Key-Employee Brochure Heightened Disclosure
type: Notice-PeriodKey-EmployeeBrochureDistributionHeightenedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Brochure Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Assessment
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period after issuing the termination notice in November 1982.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure Obligation Violated by Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Notice-Period Key-Employee Brochure Distribution Heightened Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated, upon issuing the termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982, to take affirmative steps — including errata sheets, cover letters, or verbal disclosure — to apprise prospective clients receiving the firm's brochure that Engineer A's status as a key employee had changed and that he would be departing, given that Engineer A was specifically identified as a key employee and prospective clients might rely on his availability when selecting the firm.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: From issuance of termination notice (November 15, 1982) through Engineer A's actual departure
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.275889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after the termination notice and after actual termination, raising the question of whether both elements of the misrepresentation test were satisfied.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to evaluate the continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee against both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) whether Engineer A's status as a key employee was pertinent to prospective client selection decisions, and (2) whether continued distribution was made with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications beyond what was accurate — and to refrain from distributing materials satisfying both elements simultaneously.
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
temporalscope: Throughout the period of brochure distribution after the termination notice
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.276772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Personnel Listing Prohibition
type: Post-Actual-DepartureBrochurePersonnelListingProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer B Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure BER-82
casecontext: Engineer B continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Personnel Listing Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was absolutely obligated to cease distributing any promotional materials listing Engineer A as a current key employee after Engineer A was actually terminated, regardless of whether the materials were previously printed, and this obligation was violated by Engineer B's continued use of the brochure with Engineer A's name well after Engineer A's actual termination.
sourcetext: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.276154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Departure Brochure Continued Use
type: Post-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's formal departure from Engineer B's firm through the Board's ruling
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients of Engineer B's firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:26:22.110301+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Engineer B's continued distribution of promotional brochure naming Engineer A after Engineer A's formal departure
terminatedby: Engineer B ceasing use of the brochure containing Engineer A's name
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm
textreferences: That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code
textreferences: once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely
triggeringevent: Engineer B distributing the firm brochure listing Engineer A as a key member after Engineer A had formally left the firm
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.271720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Pre-Termination Brochure Distribution During Notice Period
type: Post-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From November 15, 1982 termination notice through Engineer A's actual termination
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Engineer B's distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period, when Engineer A was still employed but had already announced plans to compete
terminatedby: Engineer A's actual termination (though brochure use continued beyond this point)
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: during that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure
triggeringevent: Engineer B's distribution of previously printed brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee during the transitional notice period
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.265380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance BER-82
type: PrintedMarketingMaterialProactiveAccuracyAssuranceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Pre-Termination Brochure Distribution During Notice Period
casecontext: Engineer B, as the firm principal who issued the termination notice, had actual knowledge that the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee would become inaccurate. The proactive accuracy obligation required Engineer B to take steps — such as errata sheets, cover letters, or reprints — to prevent the known inaccuracy from misleading prospective clients.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to take proactive steps to ensure that the firm's printed promotional brochure remained accurate as to personnel listings, including anticipating the foreseeable inaccuracy created by Engineer A's pending departure and implementing timely review and updating processes.
sourcetext: Section III.3.a. states in part that 'Engineers shall avoid use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact necessary to keep statements from being misleading; statements intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation....'
temporalscope: From issuance of termination notice onward
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination by Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A. Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: Section III.3.a. states in part that 'Engineers shall avoid use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact necessary to keep statements from being misleading; statements intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation....'
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.292498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Honesty Principle Invoked Against Engineer B Brochure Misrepresentation
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's marketing brochure distribution practices
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination notice and after actual departure violated the honesty obligation by creating a false impression of the firm's personnel composition to prospective clients.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends to marketing materials; knowingly distributing materials that misrepresent the firm's personnel constitutes a dishonesty violation regardless of the commercial motivation.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
tensionresolution: Honesty obligation is not balanced away by commercial considerations; the intent-and-purpose element of the misrepresentation provision confirms that Engineer B's knowing distribution constitutes a honesty violation.
textreferences: That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
textreferences: That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.262311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer B Brochure
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Assurance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination violates the fundamental professional obligation of honesty by presenting a false picture of the firm's personnel to prospective clients.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations requires that marketing materials accurately reflect the firm's current capabilities and personnel; Engineer B's post-termination brochure use is a straightforward honesty violation.
invokedby: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
tensionresolution: No competing principle justifies the dishonesty; the honesty obligation is clear and unambiguous in this context.
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.274227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Loyalty Obligation Tension in Engineer A Pre-Departure Solicitation
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed during the notice period creates tension with the loyalty obligation owed to the current employer, though this tension is substantially mitigated by the employer-initiated nature of the termination.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The loyalty principle does not disappear upon receipt of a termination notice, but its weight is significantly reduced when the employer has already signaled the end of the employment relationship; the reciprocity of the at-will employment relationship informs the scope of the remaining loyalty obligation.
invokedby: Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work. Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work. Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
tensionresolution: The employer-initiated termination substantially reduces the loyalty constraint on solicitation; remaining loyalty obligations are satisfied by not supplanting active contracts and not exploiting confidential information.
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.274539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right Contextual Boundary Applied
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryandEngineerMobilityRight
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Boundary between permissible post-departure competition and prohibited pre-departure solicitation
balancingwith: Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Trustee Duty as General Loyalty and Fair Dealing
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board affirmed that an engineer who severs all ties with an employer and then seeks to contact the employer's clients to offer engineering services does not violate the Code — preserving the engineer's mobility right — while simultaneously holding that this right does not extend to covert solicitation of current clients during active employment.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The mobility right is real and protected, but it is bounded by the timing of departure and the current/former client distinction; the right does not license conduct that exploits the employment relationship against the employer's active interests.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
sourcetext: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code. To the contrary, those were the facts of Case 77-11 and that case remains a proper interpretation of the Code.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension by affirming Case 77-11's protection of post-departure mobility while carving out the pre-departure current-client solicitation scenario as a distinct and prohibited category.
textreferences: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice.
textreferences: To the contrary, those were the facts of Case 77-11 and that case remains a proper interpretation of the Code.
textreferences: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.289978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation Applied to Engineer B Notice Period
type: BrochurePersonnelCurrencyDisclosureDuringActiveNegotiationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's brochure distribution during Engineer A's notice period
balancingwith: Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: During the period between Engineer A's termination notice and actual departure, Engineer B was obligated to inform prospective clients during active negotiations of Engineer A's pending departure, rather than allowing the brochure to create a false impression of Engineer A's continued availability.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to disclose pending departure during active negotiations is a minimum standard; the Board treated reprinting as impracticable but required verbal disclosure during negotiations as a substitute corrective measure.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
sourcetext: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
tensionresolution: The Board distinguished the notice period (disclosure during negotiations required but reprinting not mandated) from the post-departure period (continued use absolutely prohibited).
textreferences: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
textreferences: we are of the view that a requirement that Engineer B insert an addendum or an amendment in the brochure informing prospective clients that Engineer A would soon be leaving the firm is both impracticable and unnecessary.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.289445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Current-Employment Specialized Knowledge Disclosure Obligation Applied Conditionally to Engineer A
type: SpecializedKnowledgeConstraintonPost-DepartureCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's potential use of project-specific specialized knowledge in competitive solicitation
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board conditionally analyzed that if Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge about Engineer B's clients' projects and then sought that work without full disclosure to Engineer B, a violation of Section III.4.a would result — treating the employment-period specialized knowledge disclosure obligation as even stronger than the post-departure constraint.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The specialized knowledge constraint applies with full force during active employment; the duty of full disclosure to the employer before using such knowledge competitively is non-negotiable.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
sourcetext: As an employee of Engineer B, Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer.
tensionresolution: The Board treated the specialized knowledge issue as conditional on facts not established, but affirmed that disclosure would be required; the employment relationship amplifies rather than diminishes the constraint.
textreferences: A related question under the facts of this case is whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: As an employee of Engineer B, Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer.
textreferences: Assuming that in fact Engineer A had gained such knowledge and then sought such work without full disclosure to the employer, Engineer B, it appears that Engineer A would have violated Section III.4.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.288888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Employer Disclosure Duty in Competitive Pre-Departure Solicitation Applied to Engineer A
type: EmployerDisclosureDutyinCompetitivePre-DepartureSolicitation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's undisclosed solicitation of Engineer B's clients
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to disclose competitive solicitation activities to Engineer B while still employed constituted an independent violation of the duty of disclosure inherent in the faithful agent relationship.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Disclosure to the employer is a minimum condition for any competitive activity during employment; its absence independently constitutes a violation separate from the solicitation itself.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Employer Disclosure Duty in Competitive Pre-Departure Solicitation
sourcetext: An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose. Certainly it is not possible for an engineer to meet those obligations to the employer if the engineer is engaging in such promotional activity to the employer's detriment.
tensionresolution: The Board held that the duty of disclosure is non-negotiable during active employment; the employer-initiated termination does not waive the employee's disclosure obligation.
textreferences: An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
textreferences: Certainly it is not possible for an engineer to meet those obligations to the employer if the engineer is engaging in such promotional activity to the employer's detriment.
textreferences: by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.288330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Applied to Engineer A
type: Former-ClientSolicitationWithoutActive-ContractSupplantingPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: Definite Steps Threshold for Engineer Supplanting Prohibition Activation
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's notification to Engineer B's clients that he was starting a new firm and seeking future work is permissible to the extent those clients had no active, executed contracts with Engineer B for specific projects, because solicitation of uncontracted clients does not constitute supplanting.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical permissibility of Engineer A's solicitation hinges on whether Engineer B's clients had taken definite steps toward retaining Engineer B for specific projects; absent such steps, the solicitation is competitive but not unethical supplanting.
invokedby: Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
principleclass: Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
tensionresolution: Solicitation of clients without active contracts is resolved as permissible under free and open competition principles, even when conducted during the notice period following employer-initiated termination.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.272027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Applied to Engineer B
type: Notice-PeriodBrochureDistributionConditionalPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's continued distribution of the previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period (November 1982 through actual termination) is conditionally permissible only if Engineer B provided contemporaneous corrective disclosure of Engineer A's pending departure and did not use the listing with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications through Engineer A's credentials.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The notice period creates a practical window during which reprinting may not be feasible, but this window is conditioned on disclosure; Engineer B's failure to disclose Engineer A's pending departure while distributing the brochure converts conditional permissibility into a violation.
invokedby: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
principleclass: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
tensionresolution: The conditional permissibility is defeated by Engineer B's failure to apprise clients of the changed employment status during active negotiations, transforming the notice-period distribution into a misrepresentation.
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.272572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation Applied to Engineer A
type: DepartedEngineerCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, upon receiving the termination notice and then upon actual departure, bore an obligation to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B ceased representing Engineer A as a current key employee in brochures distributed to prospective clients, because the continued misrepresentation implicates Engineer A's professional reputation and the integrity of the credential-reliance system.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer A's professional reputation is at stake when Engineer B's brochure falsely implies Engineer A's continued affiliation; Engineer A has both a self-protective interest and a professional integrity obligation to demand correction.
invokedby: Engineer A Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
principleclass: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
tensionresolution: The correction obligation does not conflict with Engineer A's competitive solicitation activities; both obligations can be simultaneously discharged by demanding brochure correction while proceeding with legitimate client solicitation.
textreferences: Engineer A's name and status as a key employee continued to appear in Engineer B's marketing brochures both during the notice period and after actual termination.
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.273781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

At-Will Employment Symmetry Invoked By Engineer A Upon Termination Notice
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryandEngineerMobilityRight
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients after receiving termination notice
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having received an employer-initiated termination notice citing lack of work, exercised the reciprocal mobility right to begin soliciting prospective clients for a new engineering firm while still serving out the notice period.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Because Engineer B initiated the termination rather than Engineer A voluntarily departing, the moral weight of the loyalty obligation is reduced; Engineer A's solicitation is the natural exercise of the mobility right that mirrors the employer's termination right.
invokedby: Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
principleclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
sourcetext: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work. Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
tensionresolution: The employer-initiated nature of the termination shifts the ethical balance toward permitting solicitation, provided no active contracts are supplanted and no confidential knowledge is exploited.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.268999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure Obligation Violated by Engineer B
type: BrochurePersonnelCurrencyDisclosureDuringActiveNegotiationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
appliedto: Engineer B's Current Clients Prospective Brochure-Relying
balancingwith: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, having issued a termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982, bore an obligation to apprise prospective clients of Engineer A's changed employment status whenever distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during active negotiations; Engineer B's failure to provide this corrective disclosure during the notice period constitutes misrepresentation of a pertinent fact.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The pertinence of Engineer A's listing to client selection decisions triggers the disclosure obligation; clients relying on the brochure to assess firm capabilities are materially misled if they are not informed that the listed key employee is departing.
invokedby: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
principleclass: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
tensionresolution: The disclosure obligation is not discharged by the practical difficulty of reprinting; a corrective cover letter or errata sheet during active negotiations would have satisfied the obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.272806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Notice-Period Boundary
type: Employer-InitiatedTerminationNotice-PeriodFaithfulAgentBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
defeasible under: Engineer A Covert Current-Client Solicitation While Employed
casecontext: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several months after the November 1982 termination notice while simultaneously soliciting Engineer B's clients for his new firm.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Trustee Duty Invoked Against Engineer A Current Client Solicitation
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employer-Initiated Termination Notice-Period Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain faithful agent conduct toward Engineer B during the notice period — continuing to perform assigned duties, refraining from using employer resources for his new firm, and conducting client solicitation honestly and without disparagement — while recognizing that the employer-initiated termination released him from the stronger loyalty constraint applicable to voluntarily departing engineers.
sourcetext: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
temporalscope: November 15, 1982 through actual termination date
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.275169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Constraint
type: SpecializedKnowledgePost-DepartureCompetitionConstraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Post-Departure Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Boundary BER-82
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Terminated
casecontext: Engineer A solicited Engineer B's clients for future work after receiving termination notice; the case raises the conditional question of whether Engineer A had gained specialized knowledge about specific client projects during employment.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Specialized Knowledge Constraint Conditional Application to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Constraint Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from competing for any specific projects on which he had gained particular and specialized knowledge during his employment with Engineer B, recognizing that while general professional skills are freely portable, project-specific specialized knowledge creates a constraint on post-departure competition requiring the former employer's or affected client's consent.
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
temporalscope: During and after the notice period, for any projects involving specialized knowledge gained during employment
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.274967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure BER-82
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure BER-82
defeasible under: Engineer B Pre-Termination Brochure Distribution During Notice Period
casecontext: The Board applied the dual-element test: (1) Engineer A's name as a key employee was a 'pertinent fact' because clients may select a firm based on the presence of a named engineer; (2) Engineer B's continued distribution with knowledge of the impending and actual departure demonstrated intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications. Both elements were satisfied, establishing a violation of Section II.5.a.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the firm's promotional brochure satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — that it did not misrepresent pertinent facts (element 1) with intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications (element 2) — and failed this obligation by listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination notice and after actual departure.
sourcetext: Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
temporalscope: During brochure distribution both during notice period and after actual departure
textreferences: Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
textreferences: It is clear, therefore, that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: The facts presented in the case appear to demonstrate that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
textreferences: Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.292058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Cessation Absolute BER-82
type: Post-Actual-DepartureBrochureCessationAbsoluteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure BER-82
prevails over: Engineer B Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure BER-82
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing a promotional brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A had formally departed the firm. This constituted a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications, violating NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Cessation Absolute Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was absolutely obligated to cease distributing any brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee immediately upon Engineer A's formal departure from the firm.
sourcetext: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
temporalscope: From Engineer A's actual departure date onward
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
textreferences: That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
textreferences: once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.291691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Loyalty Principle Invoked Against Engineer A Pre-Departure Conduct
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's employment relationship with Engineer B during notice period
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to Engineer B as employer required refraining from covert competitive solicitation of Engineer B's current clients during the employment period, and required disclosure of any such activity.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Loyalty during employment is not suspended by receipt of a termination notice; it persists until actual departure and encompasses both the duty to refrain from harmful competitive conduct and the duty to disclose.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith. An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
tensionresolution: Loyalty prevails over the mobility interest during the active employment period; the termination notice shifts some moral responsibility but does not extinguish the loyalty duty.
textreferences: Again, Engineer A owes duties of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure to the employer for which the breach constitutes a violation of the Code.
textreferences: That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.262020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Applied to Engineer B
type: Post-Actual-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseAbsoluteProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's brochure distribution after Engineer A's actual departure
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Once Engineer A had formally departed, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee constituted an unambiguous misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance qualifications, with no permissibility exception for cost or inconvenience.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Post-departure continued use of brochures listing a departed key employee is per se a violation; no balancing against cost or practicability is available once the employment has actually ended.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Principle
sourcetext: once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely.
tensionresolution: The Board held that the post-departure distribution is a clear violation without qualification; the intent-and-purpose element is satisfied by Engineer B's awareness as the terminating party.
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
textreferences: That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
textreferences: once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.289674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Departure Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Boundary BER-82
type: Post-DepartureFormer-ClientSolicitationPermissibilityBoundaryRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Constraint
defeasible under: Engineer A Insider Client Knowledge Competitive Advantage
defeasible under: Engineer A Pending Termination Active Employment
defeasible under: Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Solicitation Risk
casecontext: The Board reaffirmed that an engineer who severs all ties with an employer and then contacts the employer's clients to offer engineering services does not violate the Code. This permissibility boundary was distinguished from the instant case because Engineer A solicited current (not former) clients while still employed — the two factual distinctions that made BER Case 77-11 inapplicable to Engineer A's pre-departure conduct.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right Contextual Boundary Applied
derived from principle: Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (and ethics evaluators)
obligationclass: Post-Departure Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Boundary Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's post-departure solicitation of Engineer B's former clients — after fully severing all employment ties — was recognized as ethically permissible under BER Case 77-11, provided no active contracts were supplanted and no specialized knowledge was exploited without disclosure.
sourcetext: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
temporalscope: After actual departure from Engineer B's firm
textreferences: Nor do we wish to suggest any restraint exists upon one's absolute right to select in all cases, the engineer of one's choice.
textreferences: To the contrary, those were the facts of Case 77-11 and that case remains a proper interpretation of the Code.
textreferences: We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
textreferences: We have often held that (the Code) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.293004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Departure Competitive Solicitation Employer Disclosure BER-82
type: Pre-DepartureCompetitiveSolicitationEmployerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
prevails over: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
casecontext: Engineer A engaged in competitive solicitation of Engineer B's current clients without informing Engineer B of this activity, constituting a failure of the disclosure component of the faithful agent and trustee duty under NSPE Code Section I.4.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Employer Disclosure Duty in Competitive Pre-Departure Solicitation Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Loyalty Principle Invoked Against Engineer A Pre-Departure Conduct
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pre-Departure Competitive Solicitation Employer Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Engineer B that he was soliciting Engineer B's current clients for competing professional services while still employed during the notice period.
sourcetext: An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
temporalscope: During the notice period while still employed by Engineer B
textreferences: An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
textreferences: Engineer A owes duties of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure to the employer for which the breach constitutes a violation of the Code.
textreferences: by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.290712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Employer Disclosure Before Competitive Use BER-82
type: SpecializedKnowledgeEmployerDisclosureBeforeCompetitiveUseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
defeasible under: Engineer A At-Will Professional Mobility
casecontext: The Board conditionally analyzed that if Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge about specific client projects during employment with Engineer B, and then sought work from those clients using that knowledge without full disclosure to Engineer B, Engineer A would have violated NSPE Code Section III.4.a. The facts did not confirm whether such specialized knowledge was actually exploited.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Current-Employment Specialized Knowledge Disclosure Obligation Applied Conditionally to Engineer A
derived from principle: Specialized Knowledge Constraint Conditional Application to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Specialized Knowledge Employer Disclosure Before Competitive Use Obligation
obligationstatement: If Engineer A had gained particular and specialized knowledge about Engineer B's clients' projects during employment, Engineer A was obligated to make full disclosure to Engineer B before using that specialized knowledge in competitive solicitation of those clients.
sourcetext: A related question under the facts of this case is whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge.
temporalscope: Conditional — applicable if specialized knowledge was gained and used competitively during or after employment
textreferences: A related question under the facts of this case is whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge.
textreferences: As an employee of Engineer B, Engineer A could not ethically use proprietary information concerning clients, trade secrets, or other valuable information of the employer without full disclosure to the employer.
textreferences: Assuming that in fact Engineer A had gained such knowledge and then sought such work without full disclosure to the employer, Engineer B, it appears that Engineer A would have violated Section III.4.a. of the Code.
textreferences: The facts do not indicate whether Engineer A was attempting to secure work through particular and specialized knowledge gained.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.291183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use
type: Post-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's actual termination date through the period Engineer B continued distributing the brochure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:24:15.972252+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Engineer B's continued distribution of promotional brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination
terminatedby: Not explicitly resolved in the case text
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
triggeringevent: Engineer A's actual termination combined with Engineer B's failure to update or withdraw brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.265136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Faithful Agent Trustee Duty Invoked Against Engineer A Current Client Solicitation
type: FaithfulAgentTrusteeDutyasGeneralLoyaltyandFairDealing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients during active employment
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, while still employed by Engineer B and having received a termination notice, solicited Engineer B's current clients without informing Engineer B, thereby breaching the faithful agent and trustee duty of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent duty requires disclosure of competitive activities directed at the employer's current clients; covert solicitation while employed violates the duty regardless of the termination notice received.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Faithful Agent Trustee Duty as General Loyalty and Fair Dealing
sourcetext: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.). That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith. An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
tensionresolution: The Board held that the employer-initiated termination does not license covert solicitation of current clients; the faithful agent duty persists until actual departure and requires disclosure of competitive activities.
textreferences: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
textreferences: An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
textreferences: That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith.
textreferences: it is concluded that Engineer A violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.287823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty During Notice Period BER-82
type: Employer-InitiatedTerminationNotice-PeriodFaithfulAgentBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
defeasible under: Engineer A No Written Non-Compete Agreement
prevails over: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
casecontext: Engineer A received a termination notice from Engineer B but continued working during the notice period. During this time, Engineer A solicited Engineer B's current clients without disclosure, violating the faithful agent and trustee duty under NSPE Code Section I.4.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Trustee Duty Invoked Against Engineer A Current Client Solicitation
derived from principle: Loyalty Principle Invoked Against Engineer A Pre-Departure Conduct
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employer-Initiated Termination Notice-Period Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain faithful agent conduct toward Engineer B during the notice period, including refraining from covertly diverting Engineer B's current client relationships to his new firm and from using his employment position to advance competitive interests without disclosure.
sourcetext: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
temporalscope: From receipt of termination notice through actual departure
textreferences: An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
textreferences: That requires the engineer to recognize both a duty of loyalty and good faith.
textreferences: it is concluded that Engineer A violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.291401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
type: Pre-DepartureClient-SolicitingTermination-NotifiedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: At-Will Employment Symmetry Invoked By Engineer A Upon Termination Notice
adheres to principle: Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Applied to Engineer A
adheres to principle: Loyalty Obligation Tension in Engineer A Pre-Departure Solicitation
adheres to principle: Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition Boundary Applied to Engineer A Solicitation
has obligation: Engineer A Current-Client Covert Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition BER-82
has obligation: Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty During Notice Period BER-82
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Notice-Period Boundary
has obligation: Engineer A Pre-Departure Competitive Solicitation Employer Disclosure BER-82
has obligation: Engineer A Questionable Competition Methods Covert Solicitation BER-82
attributes: {'employment_status': 'Termination-notified staff engineer', 'action_taken': "Solicited employer's clients for future work with new competing firm during notice period", 'timing': 'Solicitation occurred during active employment, not after departure'}
caseinvolvement: Received termination notice from Engineer B on November 15, 1982, then immediately solicited Engineer B's clients for his new firm while continuing to work for Engineer B for several additional months during the notice period.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited', 'target': "Engineer B's Clients"}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_brochure_misrepresentation', 'target': 'Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.260385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
type: PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee must be assessed against both elements: (1) whether Engineer A's listing constitutes a 'pertinent fact' to prospective clients' selection decisions, and (2) whether Engineer B acted with the intent and purpose of enhancing the firm's qualifications through the listing; the post-actual-termination continued use is more likely to satisfy both elements than the notice-period distribution.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's designation as a 'key employee' in the brochure strongly suggests pertinence to client selection; the continued use after actual termination, when Engineer B had full knowledge of the inaccuracy, raises a strong inference of intent to enhance qualifications through the misrepresentation.
invokedby: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
principleclass: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
tensionresolution: Both elements are more readily satisfied post-actual-termination than during the notice period; the dual-element test provides a graduated analysis that distinguishes the two temporal phases of Engineer B's conduct.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.273309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation Applied to Engineer B
type: ProactiveMarketingMaterialAccuracyAssuranceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B bore an affirmative, ongoing obligation to take proactive steps — errata sheets, cover letters, reprints — to ensure that brochures listing Engineer A remained accurate, and the failure to take any such measures during both the notice period and after actual termination constitutes a breach of this proactive stewardship obligation.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The proactive obligation extends beyond reactive correction triggered by client complaints; Engineer B's awareness of the impending and then actual departure created an immediate proactive duty to address the brochure's accuracy.
invokedby: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Assurance Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
tensionresolution: The proactive obligation and the reactive correction obligation are complementary and both violated by Engineer B's inaction; together they establish a comprehensive accuracy stewardship standard.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.273526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Expeditious Correction Obligation Violated by Engineer B Post-Actual-Termination
type: ExpeditiousCorrectionObligationUponActualKnowledgeofMarketingMaterialInaccuracy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
appliedto: Engineer B's Current Clients Prospective Brochure-Relying
balancingwith: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Assurance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Once Engineer A was actually terminated, Engineer B had actual knowledge that the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee was inaccurate; Engineer B's continued use of the brochure 'well after' actual termination without expeditious corrective action independently constitutes an ethical violation regardless of whether the original notice-period distribution was permissible.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The post-actual-termination continued use is the most clear-cut ethical violation in this case: there is no conditional permissibility argument available after actual departure, and Engineer B's inaction after actual knowledge of the inaccuracy is an independent ethical failure.
invokedby: Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
principleclass: Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
tensionresolution: No competing principle justifies continued use of the inaccurate brochure after actual termination; the correction obligation is absolute at this stage.
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.273031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Specialized Knowledge Constraint Conditional Application to Engineer A
type: SpecializedKnowledgeConstraintonPost-DepartureCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: If Engineer A gained particular and specialized knowledge about specific client projects during employment with Engineer B, Engineer A's solicitation of those specific clients for substantially similar work would require the consent of Engineer B or the affected clients before proceeding.
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: This principle applies conditionally: the case raises but does not resolve whether Engineer A possessed such specialized project-specific knowledge; if so, the solicitation obligation is constrained accordingly.
invokedby: Engineer A Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee
principleclass: Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
sourcetext: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
tensionresolution: The constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general competition prohibition; absent evidence of specialized knowledge exploitation, the solicitation remains within permissible bounds.
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.272251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure BER-82
type: Notice-PeriodActive-NegotiationKey-EmployeeDepartureDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure BER-82
competes with: Engineer B Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Cessation Absolute BER-82
defeasible under: Engineer B Post-Departure Brochure Continued Use
defeasible under: Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use
casecontext: Engineer B issued a termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982 but continued distributing a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee. During the interim period before Engineer A's actual departure, Engineer B was obligated to disclose Engineer A's pending departure during active client negotiations, though not required to insert formal addenda in every brochure copy.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation Applied to Engineer B Notice Period
derived from principle: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure Obligation Violated by Engineer B
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated, during active negotiations with prospective clients occurring between the date of Engineer A's termination notice and Engineer A's actual departure, to inform those prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termination.
sourcetext: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
temporalscope: From issuance of termination notice (November 1982) through Engineer A's actual departure date
textreferences: That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
textreferences: We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
textreferences: a requirement that Engineer B insert an addendum or an amendment in the brochure informing prospective clients that Engineer A would soon be leaving the firm is both impracticable and unnecessary.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.262519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
type: Brochure-MisrepresentingTerminatingEmployerEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure Obligation Violated by Engineer B
adheres to principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation Violated by Engineer B Post-Actual-Termination
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer B Brochure
adheres to principle: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Applied to Engineer B
adheres to principle: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
adheres to principle: Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation Applied to Engineer B
has obligation: Engineer B Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment
has obligation: Engineer B Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Utilization
has obligation: Engineer B Expeditious Marketing Material Error Correction Upon Actual Knowledge
has obligation: Engineer B Inadvertent Brochure Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction
has obligation: Engineer B Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure BER-82
has obligation: Engineer B Notice-Period Key-Employee Brochure Heightened Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure
has obligation: Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure BER-82
has obligation: Engineer B Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Cessation Absolute BER-82
has obligation: Engineer B Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Personnel Listing Prohibition
has obligation: Engineer B Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance
has obligation: Engineer B Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance BER-82
attributes: {'role_in_firm': 'Firm principal/employer', 'action_taken': 'Continued distributing outdated brochure listing terminated engineer as key employee', 'duration_of_misrepresentation': 'During notice period and after actual termination'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B issued a termination notice to Engineer A in November 1982 but continued distributing a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period and after actual termination, misrepresenting the firm's personnel to prospective clients.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:23:54.882556+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'distributed_brochure_to', 'target': "Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure"}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.260784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction

Engineer A Employer-Initiated Termination Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility
type: Employer-InitiatedTerminationNoticePre-DepartureClientSolicitationPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty During Notice Period BER-82
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Notice-Period Boundary
competes with: Engineer A Pre-Departure Competitive Solicitation Employer Disclosure BER-82
competes with: Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Employer Disclosure Before Competitive Use BER-82
defeasible under: Engineer A Active Client Solicitation During Continued Employment
defeasible under: Engineer A Covert Current-Client Solicitation While Employed
defeasible under: Engineer A Pending Termination Notice Active Employment Continuation
defeasible under: Engineer A Specialized Knowledge Solicitation Risk
casecontext: Engineer B terminated Engineer A for lack of work; Engineer A immediately notified Engineer B's clients of his new firm and sought future work while continuing to work for Engineer B during the notice period.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: At-Will Employment Symmetry Invoked By Engineer A Upon Termination Notice
discoveredincase: 171
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 171
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T14:31:39.785898+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employer-Initiated Termination Notice Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, having received an employer-initiated termination notice from Engineer B on November 15, 1982, was obligated to recognize that soliciting Engineer B's clients for future work with his new firm was ethically permissible under the at-will employment symmetry principle, provided no active contracts were supplanted and no specialized confidential knowledge was exploited, and to conduct such solicitation honestly and without disparagement of Engineer B.
sourcetext: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
temporalscope: From receipt of termination notice (November 15, 1982) through actual departure
textreferences: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
textreferences: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
textreferences: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
wasattributedto: Case 171 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:51:15.274784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 171 Extraction