ProEthica Case 174 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.115280
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER-Case-Precedent-Firm-Personnel-Misrepresentation
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Firm Personnel and Qualification Misrepresentation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
usedby: Ethics reviewers and Engineer Z in evaluating obligations
usedincontext: Analogical precedents from the NSPE Board of Ethical Review addressing situations where firm principals misrepresented personnel qualifications or continued to list departed/departing engineers in firm marketing materials
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.117389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER83-1 Engineer B Pre-Termination Brochure Distribution with Pending Notice
type: Intent-DifferentiatedMarketingMisrepresentationAssessmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of termination notice to Engineer A through Engineer A's actual departure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination
stateclass: Intent-Differentiated Marketing Misrepresentation Assessment State
subject: Engineer B's distribution of brochure listing Engineer A as key employee during the period after termination notice was given but before actual departure
terminatedby: Engineer A's actual termination from the firm
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination
textreferences: it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination
textreferences: this 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
triggeringevent: Engineer B issuing termination notice to Engineer A while continuing to distribute brochure
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.118486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER 83-1: Engineer B Distributes Brochure During Notice Period
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal Engineer, precedent case BER 83-1
foreseen unintended effects: Clients might select the firm based on Engineer A's listed expertise without knowing of the pending departure
foreseen unintended effects: Prospective clients would believe Engineer A was a stable, available key employee
fulfills obligation text: Ongoing business promotion activities
guided by principle text: Avoidance of misrepresentation to enhance firm qualifications
guided by principle text: Full disclosure of material facts affecting client decisions
guided by principle text: Honesty in public statements and firm representations
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Maintain firm's competitive positioning and perceived qualifications during the business development process by presenting Engineer A as a key available resource
requires capability text: Assessment of materiality of personnel changes to firm qualifications
requires capability text: Firm management and marketing judgment
requires capability text: Understanding of disclosure obligations in client negotiations
temporal marker: During Engineer A's termination notice period; prior to Engineer A's actual departure (BER 83-1)
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Duty of transparency in firm qualification representations
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid misleading clients about the availability of key personnel
violates obligation text: Obligation to disclose pertinent facts to prospective clients during negotiation
within competence: true
comment: In the precedent case BER 83-1, Engineer B chose to distribute previously printed brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee during the termination notice period, without informing prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termination. This decision was made with full knowledge of the impending departure.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER 83-1: Engineer B Distributes Brochure During Notice Period → Board Rules on BER 83-1 Notice Period
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The Board issues a ruling establishing that distribution of brochures listing a departing employee during the notice period does not constitute an ethical violation
cause: BER 83-1: Engineer B Distributes Brochure During Notice Period
counterfactual: Had Engineer B only distributed brochures post-departure (not during the notice period), the Board would not have had occasion to distinguish the two phases, and the nuanced notice-period ruling would not exist
effect: Board Rules on BER 83-1 Notice Period
necessary factors: Engineer B's distribution of previously printed brochures during the notice period
necessary factors: Existence of pre-printed materials creating a practical constraint on immediate cessation
necessary factors: The Board's consideration of the notice period as a distinct temporal phase
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: The combination of pre-printed materials, the limited notice period window, and the practical impossibility of immediate recall was sufficient for the Board to find no violation during this phase
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER 83-1: Engineer B Distributes Brochure Post-Departure
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal Engineer, precedent case BER 83-1
foreseen unintended effects: Clients selecting the firm based on Engineer A's credentials would not receive the services they anticipated
foreseen unintended effects: Prospective clients would be materially misled about the firm's available expertise
guided by principle text: Avoidance of misrepresentation to enhance firm qualifications
guided by principle text: Honesty and integrity in all professional representations
guided by principle text: Protection of public and client interests from deceptive firm practices
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate and knowing
intended outcome: Enhance the firm's perceived qualifications and competitive positioning by continuing to represent Engineer A's expertise as available to prospective clients
requires capability text: Ethical judgment regarding permissible bounds of firm marketing
requires capability text: Firm management responsibility for accuracy of promotional materials
requires capability text: Understanding of professional obligations regarding personnel misrepresentation
temporal marker: After Engineer A's actual termination and departure from the firm (BER 83-1)
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid deceptive practices in firm marketing
violates obligation text: Obligation to accurately represent firm personnel and available expertise
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid misrepresentation of pertinent facts in firm promotional materials
violates obligation text: Obligation to protect prospective clients from material misrepresentations affecting their professional decisions
within competence: true
comment: In BER 83-1, Engineer B made the deliberate decision to continue distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee even after Engineer A had actually left the firm. The Board found this to be a clear ethical violation.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER 83-1: Engineer B Distributes Brochure Post-Departure → BER 83-1 Precedent Established
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The Board of Ethical Review's prior ruling in BER 83-1 becomes an established precedent that shapes the evaluation of Engineer Z's conduct
cause: BER 83-1: Engineer B Distributes Brochure Post-Departure
counterfactual: Without Engineer B's post-departure distribution and the Board's ruling thereon, no precedent would exist to guide evaluation of Engineer Z's conduct, potentially altering the Board's finding
effect: BER 83-1 Precedent Established
necessary factors: A sufficiently analogous factual scenario to generate applicable precedent
necessary factors: Engineer B's deliberate decision to continue distributing brochures after Engineer A's departure
necessary factors: The Board's willingness to rule on the ethical question presented
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Engineer B's post-departure distribution combined with the Board's ruling that such conduct was unethical was sufficient to establish binding precedent applicable to future similar cases
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER 83-1 Factual Distinguishability Non-Automatic Application to Engineer X Case
type: PrecedentFactualDistinguishabilityNon-AutomaticApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly distinguished the present case from BER Case 83-1 on the basis of key-employee status, intent, and the significance of the departing engineer's specialty to overall firm services.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: Precedent Factual Distinguishability Non-Automatic Application Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained to conduct a rigorous factual comparison between BER Case 83-1 and the present case before applying BER 83-1's violation finding — identifying the key-employee designation, the explicit intent to enhance qualifications, and the knowing post-termination distribution as distinguishing factors that precluded automatic application of BER 83-1's conclusion to Engineer Z and Firm Y.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: BER Case 83-1; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
sourcetext: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
temporalscope: Ethics review and precedent application analysis
textreferences: However, under the facts of the instant case, there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
textreferences: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
textreferences: We criticized Engineer B's action and we affirm that criticism.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.133028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER 83-1 Intent-Differentiated Calibration Applied to Engineer Z Firm Y Oversight Finding
type: BERPrecedentIntent-DifferentiatedMisrepresentationSeverityCalibrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board found that Engineer Z's conduct appeared more in the manner of oversight without malice or intent, distinguishing it from Engineer B's knowing and purposeful distribution of misleading brochures in BER Case 83-1.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review; Engineer Z
constraintclass: BER Precedent Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained to calibrate its violation finding to the degree of intent demonstrated by Engineer Z and Firm Y — distinguishing the clear intentional conduct of Engineer B in BER Case 83-1 (who personally terminated Engineer A and then distributed misleading brochures) from the inadvertent oversight of Engineer Z, and prohibiting mechanical application of the BER 83-1 violation finding to the present case.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 83-1; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
sourcetext: In the present case, there does not appear to be the same motive on the part of the principal engineer or the firm to act in a manner which will materially benefit the firm as was so in BER Case 83-1.
temporalscope: Ethics review of Engineer Z and Firm Y's conduct
textreferences: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
textreferences: In the present case, there does not appear to be the same motive on the part of the principal engineer or the firm to act in a manner which will materially benefit the firm as was so in BER Case 83-1.
textreferences: While this Board has found that unethical conduct in the past occurred in the absence of intentional actions, we do not consider the facts of this case to be of a nature to make such a finding.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.132878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER 83-1 Precedent Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Analogical_Reasoning_Constraint
activates constraint: Precedent_Consistency_Constraint
causes state change: A binding interpretive framework is introduced into the current case analysis; the Board's latitude to reach novel conclusions is constrained by the need for consistency with BER 83-1
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Current_Board_Must_Distinguish_Or_Follow_BER_83_1
creates obligation: Parties_Can_Invoke_BER_83_1_As_Governing_Standard
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior to current case, 1983 (referenced in Discussion section)
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: The Board of Ethical Review's prior ruling in BER 83-1 becomes an established precedent that shapes the analytical framework applied to the current case, particularly regarding the notice period versus post-departure distinction.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER Case 83-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 83-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.392246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.392246+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board has, in recent years, had occasion to consider a case similar to the instant case. In Case BER 83-1, Engineer A worked for Engineer B.
textreferences: In BER Case 83-1, a second point which we considered was whether it was the 'intent and purpose' of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
textreferences: In the BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.'
textreferences: The Board has, in recent years, had occasion to consider a case similar to the instant case. In Case BER 83-1, Engineer A worked for Engineer B.
textreferences: unlike BER Case 83-1 we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in deliberating the current case
usedincontext: Cited as the primary analogical precedent for evaluating whether Firm Y's continued listing of Engineer X in promotional materials after resignation notice constitutes a misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications; the Board distinguishes the present case from BER 83-1 on the basis of 'key employee' designation and intent
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.117687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER Case 83-1 precedent ruling before Board analysis of current Engineer X / Engineer Z case
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The Board has, in recent years, had occasion to consider a case similar to the instant case. In Case BER 83-1...
from entity text: BER Case 83-1 precedent ruling
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Board analysis of current Engineer X / Engineer Z case
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Board analysis of current Engineer X Engineer Z
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER Precedent Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration — Engineer Z Firm Y Oversight vs. Enhancement
type: BERPrecedentIntent-DifferentiatedMisrepresentationSeverityCalibrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case facts suggest the continued listing may be characterized as oversight rather than intentional enhancement, given Engineer X's non-key-employee status; intent calibration is essential to the ethical conclusion
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y) and ethical reviewers
constraintclass: BER Precedent Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethical assessment of Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X must be calibrated to the degree of intent demonstrated — distinguishing between conduct that appears to be an oversight without malice (BER Case 90-4 pattern, potentially not a violation) and conduct with clear intent to enhance firm qualifications through misrepresentation (BER Case 83-1 pattern, clear violation); the non-key-employee status of Engineer X and the absence of evidence of intentional enhancement bear on this calibration.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 83-1; BER Case 90-4; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of continued brochure distribution after Engineer X's notice and departure
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.125340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Board Finds Oversight Not Violation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: adjudicatory body, current case
foreseen unintended effects: The distinction between 'key employee' and ordinary employee listings may be difficult to apply consistently in future cases
foreseen unintended effects: The ruling may be interpreted as condoning firms' failure to update materials promptly
fulfills obligation text: Duty to provide nuanced guidance that reflects the realities of firm practice
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to apply ethical standards consistently and proportionately to the facts
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to distinguish cases where both elements of a violation are not clearly present
guided by principle text: Consistent application of the two-part Section II.5.a test
guided by principle text: Proportionality in ethical findings relative to actual harm and intent
guided by principle text: Recognition that unintentional inaccuracies may not carry the same ethical weight as deliberate misrepresentations
has agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
has mental state: deliberate and considered
intended outcome: Provide a nuanced ruling that applies the BER 83-1 precedent appropriately to distinguishable facts, avoiding over-extension of the ethical violation finding to cases lacking both required elements of Section II.5.a
requires capability text: Ability to distinguish cases on ethically relevant factual grounds
requires capability text: Assessment of materiality and intent in firm marketing decisions
requires capability text: Nuanced factual analysis and precedent application
temporal marker: At time of current case decision
temporal sequence: 12
within competence: true
comment: The Board decides that Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in firm brochures and resumes constitutes an inadvertent oversight rather than an ethical violation, distinguishing the case from BER 83-1 on the grounds that Engineer X was not designated a key employee and hydrology was not a significant portion of firm services.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Board Finds Oversight Not Violation → Caution Norm Activated
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As a secondary outcome of the Board's ruling, a professional norm is activated cautioning all engineers about the risks of personnel misrepresentation in firm materials
cause: Board Finds Oversight Not Violation
counterfactual: Had the Board found a full ethical violation, a stronger sanction norm rather than a caution norm would have been activated; had the Board issued no guidance, no norm would have been activated at all
effect: Caution Norm Activated
necessary factors: Board's determination that Engineer Z's conduct was an oversight rather than an intentional ethical violation
necessary factors: Existence of the BER 83-1 precedent providing the normative backdrop for the caution
necessary factors: The Board's decision to issue affirmative guidance rather than simply closing the matter
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Board of Ethical Review
sufficient factors: The Board's oversight finding combined with its issuance of cautionary guidance was sufficient to activate a professional norm, even in the absence of a formal violation finding
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Board Rules on BER 83-1 Notice Period
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: adjudicatory body, BER 83-1
foreseen unintended effects: Firms may interpret the conditional permission broadly and fail to make adequate disclosures
foreseen unintended effects: The disclosure requirement may be difficult to enforce in practice
fulfills obligation text: Duty to interpret and apply the NSPE Code consistently
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to balance competing legitimate interests in establishing workable standards
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to provide clear ethical guidance to the profession
guided by principle text: Proportionality in ethical standards relative to degree of potential harm
guided by principle text: Protection of prospective clients' right to accurate information
guided by principle text: Recognition of practical realities of firm marketing operations
has agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
has mental state: deliberate and considered
intended outcome: Establish a clear, workable ethical standard that balances firms' practical marketing needs with clients' right to accurate information about personnel availability
requires capability text: Ability to craft workable standards applicable to diverse factual scenarios
requires capability text: Ethical analysis and code interpretation
requires capability text: Understanding of engineering firm marketing practices
temporal marker: At time of BER 83-1 decision; applied retrospectively to current case
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
comment: The Board issues a ruling establishing that distribution of brochures listing a departing employee during the notice period is conditionally permissible, provided the firm informs prospective clients of the pending termination during negotiation. This ruling creates a binding precedent for the professional standard of conduct.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Board Rules on BER 83-1 Post-Departure
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: adjudicatory body, BER 83-1
foreseen unintended effects: Firms with large inventories of printed materials may face significant costs to comply
foreseen unintended effects: The ruling creates a clear bright-line rule that may not account for all nuanced factual variations
fulfills obligation text: Duty to provide clear ethical guidance to the profession on a recurring issue
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to enforce the NSPE Code's prohibition on misrepresentation
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect prospective clients from material misrepresentation
guided by principle text: Absolute prohibition on deliberate misrepresentation of firm qualifications
guided by principle text: Accountability for knowing and intentional ethical violations
guided by principle text: Protection of public trust in engineering firms' representations
has agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
has mental state: deliberate and considered
intended outcome: Establish an unambiguous prohibition on the use of departed employees' credentials in firm promotional materials after actual departure, protecting prospective clients from material misrepresentation
requires capability text: Application of the NSPE Code's two-part misrepresentation test
requires capability text: Assessment of intent and materiality in firm marketing decisions
requires capability text: Precedent-setting ethical analysis
temporal marker: At time of BER 83-1 decision; applied as precedent to current case
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: The Board issues a ruling that it is unethical for Engineer B to distribute brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual departure, finding both required elements of a Section II.5.a violation: misrepresentation of pertinent facts and intent to enhance firm qualifications.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Brochures Become Inaccurate
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: No_False_Credential_Listing_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Misleading_Clients_Constraint
causes state change: All circulating firm materials containing Engineer X's name as an employee are now misrepresentations of firm capability and personnel; the ethical and reputational risk to Firm Y escalates with each passing day materials remain in circulation
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Cease_Distribution_Of_Outdated_Brochures
creates obligation: Recall_Or_Correct_Distributed_Materials
creates obligation: Update_Firm_Resume_Immediately
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Day 14, simultaneous with Engineer X's departure
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: high
comment: As a direct consequence of Engineer X's departure, all previously distributed and currently circulating brochures and firm resumes listing Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y become factually inaccurate documents.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Case 174 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 8
event count: 6
total elements: 14
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Case BER 83-1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

CausalLink_BER 83-1: Engineer B Distribut
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

CausalLink_Board Finds Oversight Not Viol
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

CausalLink_Board Rules on BER 83-1 Notice
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

CausalLink_Board Rules on BER 83-1 Post-D
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer X Gives Notice
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer Z Continues Brochure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer Z Lists X on Resume
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Caution Norm Activated
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Proactive_Accuracy_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Prompt_Material_Update_Best_Practice_Constraint
causes state change: A professional norm is articulated and enters the BER record; future cases involving similar facts will have a stronger basis for finding violations, since firms can no longer claim ignorance of the expectation to update materials promptly
concept category: Event
creates obligation: All_Firms_Must_Establish_Material_Update_Protocols
creates obligation: Firms_Must_Update_Materials_Upon_Receipt_Of_Departure_Notice
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Simultaneous with and consequent upon the Oversight Finding
temporal sequence: 14
urgency level: low
comment: As a secondary outcome of the Board's ruling, a professional norm is activated cautioning all engineering firms to promptly update promotional materials upon receiving employee departure notice, creating a de facto industry standard even without a formal violation finding.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: The Board's permissive ruling rests implicitly on a temporal assumption that has no defined outer boundary: that continued brochure distribution during a two-week notice period constitutes an administrative lag rather than an affirmative misrepresentation. However, the Board's reasoning does not establish a precise cutoff after which the 'oversight' characterization expires. The most defensible reading of the Board's logic is that permissibility is coextensive with the notice period itself — meaning that once Engineer X actually departs Firm Y, any continued distribution of materials listing her as a current employee crosses from inadvertent oversight into actionable misrepresentation, regardless of intent. The Board's own caution that inadvertent inaccuracy is 'not condoned' and that expeditious correction is required implicitly establishes that the notice period functions as a grace window, not an indefinite safe harbor. Firms that fail to initiate correction procedures upon receipt of a resignation notice — even for non-key employees — cannot invoke the oversight rationale to excuse post-departure distribution.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's distinction between the present case and BER 83-1 — grounded in Engineer X's non-key status and the non-significant percentage of hydrology work — is analytically sound as a general materiality framework but contains a critical vulnerability when applied to client-specific solicitations. A general promotional brochure distributed to a broad audience carries a lower materiality threshold because no single reader is necessarily seeking hydrology services. By contrast, a firm resume submitted in direct response to a client solicitation for hydrology work transforms Engineer X's listing from a background credential into a primary qualification representation. In that context, Engineer X's departure becomes just as material as Engineer A's departure was in BER 83-1, regardless of her general prominence within Firm Y. The Board's analysis does not distinguish between these two document types, and this omission creates a gap: the permissive ruling applicable to general brochure distribution should not be extended without qualification to targeted resume submissions where the listed engineer's specific expertise is the direct basis for client selection. Engineer Z's obligation to ensure accuracy is correspondingly heightened when the firm resume is deployed in response to a hydrology-specific engagement.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding that Engineer Z's conduct was not unethical due to inadvertent oversight creates a structural tension with the proactive accuracy obligations embedded in the same ethical framework. By accepting the absence of malicious intent as a sufficient mitigating factor, the Board's ruling inadvertently rewards firms that maintain no systematic process for updating marketing materials upon personnel changes. A firm that has institutionalized a brochure-update protocol triggered automatically by any resignation notice would never face this ethical question; a firm that has no such protocol benefits from the oversight defense precisely because of its administrative negligence. To prevent this perverse incentive, the Board's permissive ruling should be understood as conditional not merely on the absence of intent to deceive, but also on the firm's demonstrated good-faith effort to initiate correction promptly upon receiving notice. Engineer Z's obligation to deploy low-cost correction mechanisms — such as errata sheets distributed to prospective clients who received the outdated brochure — is not merely aspirational guidance but a substantive condition that, if unmet, would transform the initial oversight into a continuing and culpable misrepresentation. The ethical framework thus demands that Engineer Z treat the notice event as a mandatory trigger for marketing material review, regardless of Engineer X's relative prominence within the firm.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101, the Board's 'oversight' finding implicitly establishes a time limit on permissible continued brochure distribution, though it does not articulate a precise deadline. The permissibility of continued distribution appears to rest on two concurrent conditions: first, that the distribution occurs within the active notice period (i.e., before Engineer X has actually departed), and second, that the firm has not yet had a reasonable administrative opportunity to update or recall materials. Once Engineer X actually departs Firm Y, the first condition collapses entirely, and any continued distribution thereafter cannot be characterized as an administrative lag — it becomes an affirmative misrepresentation regardless of intent. Within the notice period itself, the Board's reasoning suggests that permissibility is measured in days, not weeks, and is conditioned on the firm taking expeditious corrective steps. A firm that makes no corrective effort during a two-week notice period cannot claim the full period as a permissible lag; the oversight finding presupposes that correction was being pursued, not deferred indefinitely.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102, Engineer X bears an independent ethical obligation that the Board did not explicitly address. Under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, engineers shall not permit misrepresentation of their associates' qualifications — and by symmetry, a departing engineer should not passively permit a former employer to continue misrepresenting her as a current employee. Once Engineer X gives notice and becomes aware (or reasonably should become aware) that Firm Y continues to list her in brochures and on the firm resume, she has an affirmative duty to demand correction. If Firm Y refuses or fails to act within a reasonable period, Engineer X's obligation escalates: she should document her demand in writing and, if the misrepresentation persists and is being used to solicit clients for specialized hydrology engagements she will not fulfill, she may have a duty to notify prospective clients directly or report the continuing misrepresentation to the NSPE. The Board's silence on Engineer X's independent obligations should not be read as absolution; the ethical framework imposes duties on both the firm principal and the departing engineer.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103, the Board's reliance on hydrology constituting a non-significant percentage of Firm Y's work as a materiality exculpation may actually invert the protective logic it purports to apply. When a firm's work in a specialty area is rare, prospective clients seeking that specialty are precisely the clients most likely to rely on the listed engineer's availability — and least likely to have independent means of verifying her current employment status. A sophisticated client evaluating a general civil engineering firm for routine work may discount any single listed engineer; a client specifically seeking hydrology expertise from a firm that rarely performs such work will treat the listed hydrologist as a decisive qualification. The non-significance of hydrology to Firm Y's overall portfolio thus heightens, rather than diminishes, the materiality of Engineer X's listing to the subset of prospective clients for whom that listing is relevant. The Board's materiality analysis would have been more rigorous had it distinguished between materiality to the average prospective client and materiality to the targeted prospective client most likely to be harmed.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104, the Board's failure to separately evaluate the firm resume as distinct from the general promotional brochure represents a meaningful analytical gap. A general brochure is a passive marketing instrument distributed broadly and not necessarily tied to any specific client engagement. A firm resume, by contrast, is typically submitted in direct response to a client solicitation — a Request for Qualifications or Request for Proposals — and is evaluated by a specific client making a specific selection decision. The materiality threshold for misrepresentation in a firm resume submission is therefore higher than in a general brochure, because the nexus between the listed qualification and the client's reliance is direct and contemporaneous. Listing Engineer X on a firm resume submitted in response to a hydrology-related solicitation after her departure notice is categorically more problematic than listing her in a brochure that happens to be in circulation. The Board should have applied the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test separately to each document type, and its permissive ruling may be more defensible as applied to the brochure than as applied to the firm resume.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201, the Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability principle does conflict in a structurally significant way with the Proactive Accuracy Assurance obligation, and the tension is not merely theoretical. By accepting inadvertent oversight as a mitigating factor sufficient to avoid an ethical violation, the Board creates a perverse incentive: firms that invest in systematic processes for updating marketing materials upon receiving departure notices are held to the same standard as firms that maintain no such processes, because both can claim 'oversight' when materials are not updated promptly. A more coherent ethical framework would treat the absence of a systematic correction process as itself a violation of the Proactive Accuracy Assurance obligation, reserving the oversight mitigation only for firms that had adequate processes in place but experienced an isolated failure. The Board's ruling, as written, effectively rewards institutional inattention to marketing accuracy, which undermines the proactive duty that NSPE Code Section II.5.a is designed to enforce.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202, the Notice-Period Conditional Permissibility principle and the Brochure Personnel Currency Obligation are not merely in tension — they are logically incompatible if applied simultaneously without a governing priority rule. The Currency Obligation, read strictly, demands immediate updating upon receipt of departure notice; the Conditional Permissibility principle grants a grace period during the notice period. If a prospective client is actually harmed by relying on a stale listing during the notice period — for example, by awarding a hydrology contract to Firm Y on the basis of Engineer X's listed expertise, only to find she will not be available — the Board's permissive ruling provides no remedy and no clear assignment of ethical responsibility. The governing principle in a harm scenario should be the Currency Obligation, not the Conditional Permissibility principle, because the latter was articulated in the absence of demonstrated client harm. The Board's analysis implicitly assumes no prospective client was actually harmed during the notice period, and its permissive ruling should be understood as contingent on that assumption.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203, the Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation does conflict with the unconditional Honesty Obligation in Engineering Firm Promotional Activities, and the conflict reveals a deeper normative disagreement within the Board's framework. The Honesty Obligation, grounded in NSPE Code Section II.3.a and II.5.a, does not contain a materiality carve-out: engineers shall not permit misrepresentation of their associates' qualifications, full stop. The Materiality Exculpation introduces a consequentialist exception — inaccuracy is excused if it is unlikely to influence a client's decision — that is foreign to the deontological structure of the Code's honesty provisions. While materiality is a legitimate consideration in determining the severity of a violation and the appropriate remedy, it should not function as a threshold below which no violation exists. The Board's ruling, by treating Engineer X's non-prominent status as exculpatory rather than merely mitigating, effectively rewrites the Code's honesty provisions to include an implicit materiality floor that the Code's text does not support.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204, the Comparative Case Distinguishing principle — separating the present case from BER 83-1 on the basis of Engineer X's non-key status — does conflict with the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test when the test is applied from the perspective of a client specifically seeking hydrology services. The Dual-Element Test asks whether a fact would influence a reasonable client's decision; it does not ask whether the fact would influence the average client across all of the firm's practice areas. A client soliciting hydrology expertise from Firm Y is not the average client — she is precisely the client for whom Engineer X's departure is maximally material, regardless of Engineer X's general prominence within the firm. The Board's key-employee distinction, borrowed from BER 83-1, is a firm-centric measure of prominence that does not map cleanly onto a client-centric materiality analysis. A more rigorous application of the Dual-Element Test would require the Board to ask not 'Is Engineer X a key employee of Firm Y?' but rather 'Would Engineer X's departure be material to a prospective client seeking the specific services Engineer X provides?' — a question that may yield a different answer.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer Z did not fully satisfy a categorical duty of honesty by continuing to distribute brochures listing Engineer X as a current employee after receiving her resignation notice. Kant's categorical imperative requires that one act only according to maxims that could be universalized without contradiction. The maxim 'A firm may continue to list a departing employee in its marketing materials during the notice period because updating materials is administratively inconvenient' cannot be universalized without producing a world in which marketing materials are systematically unreliable — a result that undermines the very communicative function those materials serve. The Board's intent-based mitigation (oversight rather than deliberate misrepresentation) is a consequentialist consideration that deontological ethics does not recognize as exculpatory: the duty not to misrepresent applies regardless of whether the misrepresentation was intended or whether it caused harm. Engineer Z's conduct, evaluated deontologically, constitutes a breach of the categorical duty of honesty, even if the breach is minor and the appropriate response is correction rather than censure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the Board's permissive ruling for non-key employees during the notice period is defensible as a rule that produces better aggregate outcomes than a strict immediate-correction requirement — but only under specific empirical assumptions that the Board does not verify. The permissive rule reduces administrative burden on firms, avoids penalizing departing engineers who may not want their departure publicized prematurely, and acknowledges the logistical reality of printed marketing materials. However, these benefits accrue primarily to firms and departing engineers, not to prospective clients. A strict immediate-correction rule would better protect prospective clients from relying on stale credentials, particularly in specialized practice areas. The consequentialist case for the Board's permissive ruling therefore depends on an empirical judgment that client harm from notice-period brochure inaccuracies is rare and low-severity — a judgment the Board asserts but does not demonstrate. If client harm in specialized practice areas is more common than the Board assumes, the aggregate outcome calculus shifts toward the stricter rule.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer Z did not demonstrate the professional integrity and diligence expected of a firm principal by failing to proactively update marketing materials upon receiving Engineer X's resignation notice, even if the omission was inadvertent. A virtuous firm principal — one who embodies the character traits of honesty, diligence, and care for clients — would have established and maintained a systematic process for updating marketing materials whenever personnel changes occur. The absence of such a process is not a one-time lapse; it reflects a habitual inattention to the accuracy of the firm's representations to prospective clients. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not merely by isolated acts but by the character dispositions those acts reveal. Engineer Z's inadvertent oversight, viewed through this lens, reveals a disposition of insufficient diligence regarding marketing accuracy — a disposition that falls short of the professional integrity expected of a firm principal, regardless of whether the specific omission caused harm or constituted a formal ethical violation under the Board's materiality-based analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, the duty imposed by NSPE Code Section II.5.a applies with equal force regardless of whether the misrepresented engineer is a key employee or a non-prominent associate, and the Board's materiality-based distinction between Engineer Z's conduct and Engineer B's conduct in BER 83-1 is ethically unjustifiable as a matter of deontological principle. Section II.5.a does not contain a key-employee exception; it prohibits misrepresentation of associates' qualifications categorically. The Board's distinction between Engineer B's violation and Engineer Z's non-violation rests on a consequentialist materiality judgment — that Engineer X's departure was less likely to influence client decisions than Engineer A's — that is foreign to the deontological structure of the Code provision being applied. A deontologically consistent application of Section II.5.a would find both Engineer B and Engineer Z in violation, with the severity of the violation and the appropriate remedy calibrated by materiality, but the existence of the violation itself determined by the fact of misrepresentation, not by its likely impact.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.780984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401, the Board would almost certainly have reached a different conclusion if Engineer X's hydrology expertise had constituted a significant and prominently marketed percentage of Firm Y's billable work. The Board's entire distinguishing rationale from BER 83-1 rests on Engineer X's non-key status and the non-significance of hydrology to Firm Y's overall practice. If hydrology were a prominent practice area and Engineer X were one of its primary practitioners, she would be functionally analogous to Engineer A in BER 83-1 — a key employee whose departure is material to prospective clients evaluating the firm's capabilities. Under those facts, continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X after her departure notice would satisfy both elements of the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test: her departure would be a fact that a prospective client would want to know, and it would influence a reasonable client's decision to engage the firm for hydrology work. The Board's permissive ruling is therefore highly fact-sensitive and should not be read as establishing a general rule that notice-period brochure distribution is always permissible for any departing employee.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402, the Board's finding of 'not unethical' would not hold if Engineer Z continued distributing the brochure listing Engineer X for several months after Engineer X had actually departed and joined a competing firm. The Board's permissive ruling is explicitly conditioned on the notice period and on the characterization of continued distribution as an inadvertent oversight rather than a deliberate misrepresentation. Once Engineer X has actually departed, the notice-period rationale evaporates entirely, and continued distribution can no longer be characterized as an administrative lag — it becomes a sustained affirmative misrepresentation. The transition from permissible oversight to actionable misrepresentation likely occurs at or very shortly after Engineer X's actual departure date. A period of days post-departure might still be characterized as an administrative lag if correction was actively being pursued; a period of weeks would be difficult to defend; a period of months would constitute a clear violation of Section II.5.a regardless of intent, because the duration itself negates the plausibility of the oversight characterization and demonstrates a failure to meet the expeditious correction obligation the Board itself identifies.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403, the ethical analysis would change materially if Engineer X had actively objected to being listed in Firm Y's brochure and resume after giving notice. An active, documented objection by Engineer X would eliminate the 'oversight' characterization entirely: Engineer Z would have been on explicit notice that the listing was inaccurate and that Engineer X herself was demanding correction. Continued distribution after such an objection would constitute a deliberate misrepresentation, not an inadvertent one, and would be directly analogous to the conduct found violative in BER 83-1. Moreover, Engineer X's active objection would trigger her own independent ethical obligation to escalate if Firm Y failed to respond — potentially including notification to prospective clients or the NSPE. The Board's permissive ruling implicitly assumes that Engineer X did not actively object; had she done so, the case would present a fundamentally different ethical posture for both Engineer Z and Engineer X.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404, proactive deployment of an errata sheet or written addendum to all prospective clients who received the outdated brochure within days of Engineer X's notice would substantially — though not entirely — resolve the ethical concern arising from continued distribution of the inaccurate brochure. Such corrective action would demonstrate that Firm Y treated the accuracy obligation seriously, took expeditious steps to mitigate any potential client reliance on stale information, and did not allow the oversight to persist. However, the errata sheet would not render the initial continued distribution entirely moot as an ethical concern, because the ethical obligation to maintain accurate marketing materials is ongoing and prospective, not merely remedial. The Board's analysis does implicitly require some form of expeditious corrective action as a condition of its permissive ruling — the ruling is not a blanket endorsement of continued distribution without any corrective obligation. A firm that distributed the inaccurate brochure and took no corrective steps whatsoever, even if the distribution was inadvertent, would be in a weaker ethical position than the Board's ruling contemplates.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between the Honesty Obligation in Engineering Firm Promotional Activities and the Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability principle by treating intent as a threshold variable rather than a mere mitigating factor. Where continued brochure distribution after a departure notice stems from inadvertent administrative lag rather than deliberate enhancement of the firm's apparent capabilities, the Board declined to treat the resulting inaccuracy as a violation of the unconditional truthfulness norm embedded in Code Section II.5.a. In effect, the Board grafted a mens rea-like element onto what the Code's text frames as a strict-accuracy obligation, subordinating the Proactive Accuracy Assurance norm to the Oversight-Without-Malice principle when the departing engineer is non-key and the notice period is short. This resolution is pragmatically defensible but theoretically unstable: it implicitly rewards firms that lack systematic marketing-update protocols by treating their resulting inaccuracies as mere oversights, thereby creating a structural disincentive to invest in the very proactive accuracy mechanisms the same ethical framework demands. The case therefore teaches that when intent-based and accuracy-based principles collide, the Board prioritizes intent as the dispositive criterion for violation findings while relegating accuracy obligations to a forward-looking corrective duty rather than a backward-looking liability standard.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Board's application of the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test to distinguish the present case from BER 83-1 reveals that the Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation and the Comparative Case Distinguishing principle together function as a contextual materiality filter that modulates the otherwise categorical reach of the Honesty Obligation. By anchoring the violation finding in BER 83-1 to Engineer A's key-employee status and Engineer B's post-actual-departure distribution, the Board implicitly established that the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test is not applied in the abstract but is calibrated to the realistic decision-making behavior of a reasonable prospective client engaging the firm for its general portfolio of services. This calibration, however, creates a structural blind spot: a prospective client specifically seeking hydrology services — the precise specialty in which Engineer X holds scarce expertise within Firm Y — would find Engineer X's departure just as material as any key employee's departure, regardless of her general prominence within the firm. The Board's materiality analysis thus privileges the perspective of the average generalist client over the perspective of the specialty-seeking client, effectively subordinating the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test's case-by-case mandate to a firm-level prominence heuristic. The case teaches that when the Comparative Case Distinguishing principle and the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test interact, the Board resolves the tension by adopting a firm-centric rather than client-centric materiality standard, which may systematically underprotect clients with specialized procurement needs.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 404
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between the Notice-Period Conditional Permissibility principle and the Expeditious Correction Obligation reveals that the Board's permissive ruling is not unconditional but is instead temporally bounded by a forward-looking corrective duty. The Board's finding of 'not unethical' for Engineer Z's continued distribution during the notice period implicitly depends on the assumption that Engineer Z will deploy expeditious correction mechanisms — such as errata sheets or updated brochures — within a reasonable period after Engineer X's actual departure. This means the two principles do not genuinely conflict but operate in sequence: Notice-Period Conditional Permissibility governs the pre-departure window, while the Expeditious Correction Obligation governs the post-departure window. The case therefore teaches that the Board resolves apparent conflicts between permissive and corrective principles through temporal compartmentalization rather than hierarchical prioritization. A critical corollary is that the permissive ruling carries an implicit condition subsequent: if Engineer Z fails to correct the brochure expeditiously after Engineer X's actual departure, the initial permissibility of the notice-period distribution does not immunize the subsequent continued distribution, which would then fall squarely within the BER 83-1 prohibition on post-departure key-employee misrepresentation — or, by extension, any post-departure misrepresentation that a reasonable prospective client would find material. The Board's analysis thus implicitly requires proactive corrective action as a condition of its permissive ruling, even though it does not state this condition explicitly.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer Z immediately withdraw or correct all brochures and firm resume listings upon receiving Engineer X's resignation notice, or continue distributing existing materials during the notice period while initiating expeditious corrective steps for post-departure distribution?
focus: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, must decide how to handle the firm's existing printed brochures and firm resume that list Engineer X as a current employee after receiving Engineer X's two-week resignation notice. Engineer X is one of few engineers in the firm with hydrology expertise, but hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's overall work. The core tension is between the practical reality that printed materials cannot be instantaneously reprinted and the ongoing obligation to ensure marketing materials accurately represent firm personnel.
option1: Continue distributing existing printed brochures and firm resume during the two-week notice period without immediate recall, while simultaneously initiating correction procedures — including preparing errata sheets, updated brochures, and revised resume pages — to be deployed upon Engineer X's actual departure date, and refraining from affirmatively representing Engineer X as available for future project work.
option2: Upon receipt of Engineer X's resignation notice, immediately withdraw all brochures and firm resume submissions listing Engineer X as a current employee, issuing errata sheets or cover letters to all prospective clients who have already received the materials, treating the departure notice as a mandatory trigger for immediate correction regardless of the administrative burden.
option3: Continue distributing existing brochures during the notice period but proactively disclose Engineer X's pending departure to any prospective client who specifically inquires about hydrology capabilities or to whom the firm resume is submitted in response to a hydrology-specific solicitation, treating the disclosure obligation as context-dependent rather than universal.
role label: Engineer Z
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: After Engineer X has actually departed Firm Y, must Engineer Z treat continued distribution of brochures and firm resumes listing Engineer X as a current employee as an actionable misrepresentation requiring immediate corrective action, or may Engineer Z apply a relaxed correction timeline given Engineer X's non-key-employee status and the marginal significance of hydrology to the firm's overall practice?
focus: After Engineer X has actually departed Firm Y and joined a competing firm, Engineer Z must decide what corrective obligations apply to the firm's existing stock of printed brochures and firm resumes that continue to list Engineer X as a current employee. The Board's permissive ruling during the notice period implicitly expires at the moment of actual departure, and the question is whether Engineer Z must treat the post-departure period as categorically different — requiring expeditious correction through errata sheets, reprints, or withdrawal — or whether the non-key-employee status of Engineer X and the non-significance of hydrology to the firm's overall work continue to reduce the urgency and ethical weight of the correction obligation.
option1: Treat Engineer X's actual departure date as the mandatory trigger for immediate deployment of errata sheets, cover letters, or strike-outs to all prospective clients who received the outdated brochure, and initiate reprinting of updated materials, on the grounds that post-departure distribution of materials listing a departed employee cannot be characterized as an administrative lag regardless of that employee's prominence within the firm.
option2: Treat Engineer X's non-key-employee status and the non-significance of hydrology to the firm's overall practice as justifying a relaxed correction timeline — updating materials at the next scheduled reprint cycle rather than deploying immediate errata sheets — on the grounds that the materiality threshold for misrepresentation is lower for non-prominent personnel and the absence of intent to deceive remains a relevant mitigating factor post-departure.
option3: Deploy immediate corrections — errata sheets or verbal disclosures — only in contexts where the firm resume or brochure is submitted in response to a hydrology-specific client solicitation, while allowing the general promotional brochure to remain in circulation until the next scheduled reprint, on the grounds that materiality is context-dependent and the correction obligation is most acute where client reliance on Engineer X's specific expertise is direct and contemporaneous.
role label: Engineer Z
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.781664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer Z apply the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test uniformly across both the general promotional brochure and the firm resume — treating Engineer X's non-key status as dispositive for both document types — or apply a heightened materiality standard to firm resume submissions made in response to hydrology-specific client solicitations, where Engineer X's listed expertise is the direct basis for client selection?
focus: Engineer Z must evaluate whether the continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and firm resume satisfies both elements of the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — specifically whether Engineer X's listing constitutes a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection decisions, and whether the listing was made with intent to enhance firm qualifications beyond what was accurate. This evaluation is complicated by the distinction between general promotional brochures distributed broadly and firm resumes submitted in direct response to specific client solicitations, and by the possibility that a client specifically seeking hydrology services would find Engineer X's departure just as material as a key employee's departure regardless of her general prominence within the firm.
option1: Apply the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test uniformly to both the general promotional brochure and the firm resume, treating Engineer X's non-key-employee status and the non-significance of hydrology to the firm's overall practice as dispositive for both document types, and continuing to distribute both without modification during the notice period on the grounds that neither element of the test is clearly satisfied.
option2: Apply the uniform non-key-employee standard to the general promotional brochure while applying a heightened materiality standard to any firm resume submitted in direct response to a hydrology-specific client solicitation — disclosing Engineer X's pending departure or withholding the resume submission until corrected — on the grounds that the direct nexus between Engineer X's listed expertise and the client's selection decision elevates the materiality threshold for that document type regardless of her general prominence within the firm.
option3: Treat Engineer X's status as one of few engineers in the firm with hydrology expertise as sufficient to elevate her to functional key-employee status for brochure-listing purposes — regardless of the non-significant percentage of hydrology work in the firm's overall portfolio — and apply the stricter BER 83-1 standard requiring immediate correction upon receipt of departure notice for both the brochure and the firm resume.
role label: Engineer Z
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer Z immediately cease distributing all marketing materials listing Engineer X upon receiving her resignation notice, or continue distribution during the notice period while initiating expeditious correction procedures, distinguishing the case from BER 83-1 on the basis of Engineer X's non-key status?
focus: Engineer Z's decision about whether to continue distributing firm brochures and resumes listing Engineer X as a current employee after receiving her resignation notice, and how to distinguish the present case from BER 83-1's prohibition on post-departure key-employee misrepresentation.
option1: Continue distributing existing brochures and resumes listing Engineer X during the active notice period, treating the short administrative lag as a permissible oversight, while immediately initiating correction procedures — including errata sheets to prospective clients who received the outdated materials — and ceasing all distribution upon Engineer X's actual departure date.
option2: Immediately withdraw all marketing materials listing Engineer X from active distribution upon receiving her resignation notice, applying a strict currency obligation that treats any post-notice distribution as a misrepresentation regardless of the administrative burden of recalling printed materials or the brevity of the notice period.
option3: Continue distributing general promotional brochures during the notice period under the administrative-lag rationale, but immediately withdraw or annotate firm resumes submitted in direct response to client solicitations — particularly those involving hydrology services — where Engineer X's listed expertise is the direct basis for client selection and the materiality of her departure is heightened.
role label: Engineer Z
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Applied to Firm Y Promotional Conduct
type: DeregulatedAdvertisingContextEthicsNon-EliminationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board noted the 'brave new world' of engineering advertising following elimination of advertising proscriptions, establishing that ethical obligations of truthfulness and non-deception remained operative constraints on promotional conduct.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained by the full force of NSPE Code non-deception and truthfulness obligations in their promotional activities, notwithstanding the virtual elimination of legal and ethical proscriptions on engineering advertising — the deregulated environment did not eliminate the ethical obligation to accurately represent firm personnel and qualifications.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; Advertising Ethics Antitrust and Commercial Free Speech Tempering Constraint
sourcetext: With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
temporalscope: Throughout all promotional activities in the deregulated advertising environment
textreferences: The Board has, in recent years, had occasion to consider a case similar to the instant case.
textreferences: With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.133649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Deregulated Engineering Advertising Environment
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — described as the current state of the profession at the time of the case
affectedparties: Engineering firms
affectedparties: Engineering profession broadly
affectedparties: Individual practitioners
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise
stateclass: Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
subject: The legal and professional environment in which engineering advertising proscriptions have been eliminated, enabling broad promotional activity
terminatedby: Not terminated — persistent regulatory environment state
textreferences: a majority of engineering practitioners engage in some level of promotional activity in order to increase the visibility and activity of their firm
textreferences: the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise
textreferences: we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes'
triggeringevent: Elimination of legal and ethical proscriptions on engineering advertising
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.119191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer-Departure-and-Competition-Ethics-Standard
type: EngineerDepartureandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering ethics practice
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm
usedby: Engineer X (departing associate); Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
usedincontext: Provides the ethical framework governing the departure context — Engineer X's two-weeks notice and transition to another firm — and the reciprocal obligations of the firm principal (Engineer Z) during the notice period, including the prohibition on exploiting the departing engineer's continued nominal association for marketing advantage
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.116384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer A (BER 83-1) Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
type: Brochure-MisrepresentedDepartingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'status': 'Terminated employee', 'listing_in_brochure': "Listed as 'key employee'", 'case_reference': 'BER 83-1'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A was terminated by Engineer B but continued to be listed as a 'key employee' in the firm's promotional brochure both during the notice period and after actual termination, creating a misrepresentation of the firm's available personnel.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'misrepresented_to', 'target': "Prospective Clients of Engineer B's Firm"}
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 A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee'
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 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.119370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Terminated by Engineer B
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's actual termination date onward
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm Y (by analogy in current case)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer A's post-employment status relative to Engineer B's firm
terminatedby: Not terminated — persistent post-employment state
textreferences: Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
textreferences: after Engineer A had left the firm
triggeringevent: Engineer B's formal termination of Engineer A following prior notice
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.118653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B BER 83-1 Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose — Violation Finding
type: BrochureDistributionIntent-and-PurposeEvidenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the intent-and-purpose element of the violation by knowingly distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after actual termination, with full awareness of the termination as the person who initiated it.
casecontext: BER Case 83-1 — Engineer B's purposeful distribution of misleading brochures listing terminated Engineer A
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's knowing distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination, with the Board finding that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (BER 83-1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The facts presented in the case demonstrated that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
textreferences: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: The facts presented in the case demonstrated that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.131075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B BER 83-1 Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality — Violation Finding
type: Key-EmployeevsNon-Key-EmployeeBrochureListingMaterialityDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to recognize that listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination constituted a material misrepresentation of pertinent facts, given that Engineer A was specifically designated as a key employee and prospective clients would rely on Engineer A's availability.
casecontext: BER Case 83-1 — Engineer B continued distributing brochures listing terminated Engineer A as a key employee
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after actual termination, resulting in a Board finding that this constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (BER 83-1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm
textreferences: The Board noted that this 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: it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.130798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B BER 83-1 Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — Key Employee Violation
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to correctly apply the dual-element test, distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period (without disclosure) and after actual termination — satisfying both elements of the violation test.
casecontext: BER Case 83-1 — Engineer B terminated Engineer A but continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination, with knowledge of the termination and intent to enhance firm qualifications — resulting in a Board finding of ethical violation
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (BER 83-1)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
textreferences: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.130001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B distributing brochure during notice period before Engineer B distributing brochure after Engineer A's actual departure
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination. Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
from entity text: Engineer B distributing brochure during notice period
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer B distributing brochure after Engineer A's actual departure
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B distributing brochure after Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B distributing brochure listing Engineer A after Engineer A's actual 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 distributing brochure listing Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Engineer A's actual termination
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: Engineer A s actual termination
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B distributing brochure listing Engineer A as key employee during Engineer A's continued employment post-termination notice
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 distributing brochure listing Engineer A as key employee
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's continued employment post-termination notice
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s continued employment post-termination
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B's awareness of Engineer A's termination before Engineer B distributing misleading brochure
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A. Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination.
from entity text: Engineer B's awareness of Engineer A's termination
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer B distributing misleading brochure
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B distributing misleading brochure
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B's termination notice to Engineer A before Engineer A's continued employment for several additional months
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the termination notice.
from entity text: Engineer B's termination notice to Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's continued employment for several additional months
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s continued employment for several addi
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Departs Firm
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Immediate_Material_Correction_Constraint
activates constraint: No_False_Credential_Listing_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer X is no longer an employee of Firm Y; any promotional material listing Engineer X as an employee is now factually false; the ethical stakes of continued distribution escalate sharply
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_Z_Must_Audit_All_Distributed_Brochures
creates obligation: Engineer_Z_Must_Immediately_Remove_X_From_Materials
creates obligation: Firm_Y_Must_Notify_Clients_If_X_Was_Key_Credential
emergency status: high
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Day 14, end of two-week notice period
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: high
comment: At the conclusion of the two-week notice period, Engineer X's employment at Firm Y formally ends, making any continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's materials factually inaccurate.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Gives Notice
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Associate Engineer, Firm Y
foreseen unintended effects: Firm Y may continue to use her name in promotional materials during the notice period
foreseen unintended effects: Her specialized hydrology expertise would create a gap in Firm Y's staffing
fulfills obligation text: Obligation of honesty and transparency toward employer
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to avoid abrupt abandonment of professional responsibilities
fulfills obligation text: Professional courtesy obligation to provide advance notice
guided by principle text: Honest dealing with employer
guided by principle text: Orderly transition of professional responsibilities
guided by principle text: Professional integrity
has agent: Engineer X
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Professionally and ethically transition to a new employer while giving Firm Y reasonable time to prepare for her departure
requires capability text: Professional judgment about timing and manner of resignation
requires capability text: Understanding of professional norms for notice periods
temporal marker: Initiating event; prior to departure
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Engineer X formally notifies Firm Y of her intent to leave and join another firm, providing two weeks notice. This volitional decision initiates the chain of ethical decisions that follow.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Gives Notice → Notice Period Begins
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Upon Engineer X submitting resignation notice, a formal two-week notice period is automatically triggered
cause: Engineer X Gives Notice
counterfactual: Without Engineer X's formal notice, no notice period would have begun and the downstream ethical obligations on Firm Y and Engineer Z would not have been activated
effect: Notice Period Begins
necessary factors: Engineer X's volitional decision to formally notify Firm Y
necessary factors: Existence of an employment relationship with Firm Y
necessary factors: Formal submission of resignation notice
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer X
sufficient factors: Formal resignation notice alone was sufficient to trigger the notice period as an automatic institutional consequence
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X 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 X, upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, bore an affirmative obligation to take steps to ensure that Firm Y ceased representing Engineer X in its brochure and resume, requiring the capability to initiate corrective action with Firm Y's principal.
casecontext: Engineer X's departure from Firm Y and the resulting obligation to ensure brochure correction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that Engineer X, as the departing engineer, had an obligation to ensure Firm Y corrected its marketing materials upon departure
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer X
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of the few engineers in the firm with expertise in the field of hydrology
textreferences: Engineer X gives two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm
textreferences: Engineer X is one of the few engineers in the firm with expertise in the field of hydrology
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.131690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation — Firm Y Brochure
type: Post-DepartureFirmBrochurePersonnelListingCorrectionInitiationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X, upon giving two weeks' notice of departure from Firm Y, required the capability to take affirmative steps to ensure that Firm Y's brochures and firm resume were promptly corrected to remove her name and credentials, including directly communicating to Engineer Z the obligation to update materials.
casecontext: Engineer X gave two weeks' notice of departure; the Board found she bore an affirmative obligation to take steps to ensure Firm Y ceased representing her as a current employee
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing upon giving notice that Firm Y's continued listing of her name in brochures and firm resumes could constitute a misrepresentation and taking steps to ensure correction
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.124023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X gives two weeks notice before Engineer Z distributes brochures listing Engineer X as employee
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer X...gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm. Thereafter, Engineer Z...continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm.
from entity text: Engineer X gives two weeks notice
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer Z distributes brochures listing Engineer X as employee
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer Z distributes brochures listing Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X's notice period before Engineer X's actual departure
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer X...gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm. Thereafter, Engineer Z...continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee.
from entity text: Engineer X's notice period
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer X's actual departure
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer X s actual departure
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z BER Dual-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation — BER 83-1 vs BER 90-4
type: BERDual-PrecedentBrochurePersonnelMisrepresentationSpectrumTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z required the capability to triangulate between BER Case 83-1 (terminated key employee listed post-departure — violation) and BER Case 90-4 (departing non-key engineer listed without highlighting — no violation) to correctly locate the Engineer X scenario on the permissibility spectrum, identifying that Engineer X's non-key status and non-significant practice area aligned the case closer to BER 90-4.
casecontext: The Board explicitly triangulated between BER 83-1 and BER 90-4 to resolve the Engineer X brochure listing question
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: Locating the Engineer X brochure listing scenario on the spectrum between the two BER precedents based on key factual distinctions including employee designation, practice area significance, and intent
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.123462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z BER Multi-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Synthesis — Engineer X Case Resolution
type: BERMulti-PrecedentBrochurePersonnelMisrepresentationSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z required the capability to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize BER precedent cases addressing engineering firm brochure personnel misrepresentation — specifically BER Case 83-1 (key employee listed post-departure — violation) and BER Case 90-4 (non-key employee listed after departure notice — no violation) — to extract transferable normative principles and apply the synthesized framework to the Engineer X scenario.
casecontext: The Board synthesized BER 83-1 and BER 90-4 to resolve the Engineer X brochure listing question, applying the dual-element pertinent fact test and totality of circumstances analysis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Synthesizing the dual-precedent framework to recognize that Engineer X's non-key status and non-significant hydrology practice area placed the case within the permissible range during the notice period, while triggering expeditious correction obligations upon actual departure
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.124321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment — Engineer X Departure
type: BrochureDistributionIntent-and-PurposeEvidenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z needed to assess whether the continued distribution of Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X was motivated by intent to enhance firm qualifications — with the Board finding that the evidence pointed to inadvertent oversight rather than purposeful enhancement.
casecontext: Ethics analysis of whether Engineer Z's continued brochure distribution satisfied the intent-and-purpose element of the dual-element misrepresentation test
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Assessment that Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X appeared to be an oversight without malice or intent to enhance firm qualifications, distinguishing it from Engineer B's knowing and purposeful distribution in BER 83-1
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
textreferences: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
textreferences: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.130935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment — Engineer X Notice Period
type: BrochureDistributionIntent-and-PurposeEvidenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z required the capability to assess whether continued distribution of Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X during and after the notice period was motivated by intent to enhance the firm's qualifications — examining the timing of distribution relative to actual knowledge of Engineer X's departure and the content emphasis of the brochure — as the second required element of the dual-element misrepresentation test.
casecontext: The Board evaluated intent and purpose as a required element of the misrepresentation analysis for Engineer Z's continued brochure distribution
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Evaluating whether the continued brochure distribution after receiving Engineer X's two-week notice was accompanied by intent to enhance firm qualifications or was merely incidental to normal business operations
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.123884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration
type: BrochureMisrepresentationCase-by-CasePertinenceCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z possessed the capability to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts' — evaluating that Engineer X was not a key employee, was not highlighted, and that hydrology did not constitute a significant portion of firm services.
casecontext: Engineer Z continued distributing Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X after Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Assessment that Engineer X's listing did not constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts because Engineer X was not designated as a key employee, was not highlighted, and hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm
textreferences: Nor is there any effort or attempt on the part of Firm Y to highlight the activities or achievements of Engineer X in the field of hydrology
textreferences: it appears that this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
textreferences: there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.129713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration — Engineer X Non-Key Hydrology Associate
type: BrochureMisrepresentationCase-by-CasePertinenceCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z, as principal of Firm Y, required the capability to assess on a case-by-case basis whether continued listing of Engineer X — a non-key hydrology associate whose specialty did not constitute a significant percentage of firm work — in the firm brochure and resume constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts, calibrating corrective obligations proportionately to this assessment.
casecontext: Engineer Z continued distributing brochures listing Engineer X after receiving two weeks' notice of departure; the Board found this permissible during the notice period given non-key-employee status and non-significant practice area
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Evaluating whether Engineer X's departure materially altered Firm Y's qualification profile given that hydrology was not a significant portion of firm work and Engineer X was not designated as a key employee
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.123086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Modeling — Engineer X Personnel Listing
type: BrochureReaderReasonableExpectationModelingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Modeling Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z required the capability to model the reasonable expectations of prospective clients who read Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X — specifically, the expectation that listed personnel are currently employed and available for future projects — and to use that modeled expectation as the standard against which the accuracy and potential misleading effect of continued post-departure listings are evaluated.
casecontext: Prospective clients of Firm Y who received the brochure listing Engineer X reasonably relied on her availability; the Board found that because Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee, the impact on reasonable client expectations was reduced
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Anticipating that prospective clients reading Firm Y's brochure would reasonably expect Engineer X to be currently employed and available, and calibrating corrective obligations accordingly
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.124162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Continues Brochure Distribution
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal, Firm Y
foreseen unintended effects: Firm Y's hydrology expertise may be perceived as stronger than it is post-departure
foreseen unintended effects: Prospective clients may believe Engineer X remains available for future projects
fulfills obligation text: Ongoing business promotion obligation to maintain firm visibility
guided by principle text: Accurate representation of firm capabilities
guided by principle text: Avoidance of misleading prospective clients
guided by principle text: Honesty in public communications
has agent: Engineer Z
has mental state: negligent or inadvertent; characterized by the Board as oversight without malice
intended outcome: Continued routine marketing and business development activities for Firm Y without interruption
raises obligation text: Obligation to avoid misrepresentation of firm qualifications to prospective clients
raises obligation text: Obligation to promptly correct inaccurate promotional materials upon becoming aware of personnel changes
raises obligation text: Obligation to provide accurate and up-to-date information in marketing materials
requires capability text: Firm management and marketing oversight
requires capability text: Judgment about when promotional materials require updating
requires capability text: Knowledge of ethical obligations regarding firm representations
temporal marker: After receipt of Engineer X's two weeks notice; during and after notice period
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: After receiving Engineer X's two weeks notice, Engineer Z continues to distribute firm brochures that list Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y. This decision is made with knowledge that Engineer X is departing.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Continues Brochure Distribution → Brochures Become Inaccurate
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As a direct consequence of Engineer X's departure, all previously distributed and currently circulating brochures become factually inaccurate
cause: Engineer Z Continues Brochure Distribution
counterfactual: Had Engineer Z ceased distribution upon receiving Engineer X's notice, or had brochures been updated, the inaccuracy and associated ethical violation would have been avoided or minimized
effect: Brochures Become Inaccurate
necessary factors: Brochures containing Engineer X's name and credentials as a current firm member
necessary factors: Engineer X's departure from Firm Y
necessary factors: Engineer Z's decision to continue distributing brochures after receiving notice
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer Z
sufficient factors: Combination of Engineer X's departure plus continued distribution of brochures listing her as a current employee was sufficient to produce inaccurate representations to the public
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment — Engineer X Post-Departure Brochure
type: ErrataSheetExpeditiousCorrectionMechanismDeploymentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z required the capability to identify and deploy low-cost, expeditious correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, or reprints — upon Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y, recognizing that the availability of such mechanisms heightened the ethical obligation to act promptly and that failure to employ them would constitute a breach of professional ethics.
casecontext: The Board found that Engineer Z bore an expeditious correction obligation upon Engineer X's actual departure, with low-cost correction mechanisms available
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing the obligation to insert errata sheets or otherwise correct existing printed brochures listing Engineer X upon her actual departure from Firm Y
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.123744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment — Post-Departure Brochure
type: ErrataSheetExpeditiousCorrectionMechanismDeploymentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z was obligated to deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints — upon Engineer X's actual departure to correct the inaccuracy in Firm Y's brochure within a reasonable period of time.
casecontext: Post-departure corrective obligation for Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X after actual departure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Board guidance that errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time to correct inaccuracies in printed marketing materials
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
textreferences: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
textreferences: we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.131216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Firm Marketing Logistical Constraint Ethical Non-Excuse Recognition
type: FirmMarketingLogisticalConstraintEthicalNon-ExcuseRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Firm Marketing Logistical Constraint Ethical Non-Excuse Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z needed to recognize that while the logistical challenges of maintaining accurate printed brochures are real, they do not excuse the firm from its ethical obligation to take expeditious corrective action — and to identify and deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms.
casecontext: Engineer Z's obligation to correct Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X despite logistical challenges of printed marketing materials
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Board acknowledgment of logistical realities while affirming that firms must still take expeditious corrective action and that failure to do so risks breaching ethical behavior
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.131975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Firm Y Inadvertent Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction Obligation
type: InadvertentMarketingInaccuracyNon-CondoningExpeditiousCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly stated it was not condoning the failure to correct materials that might unintentionally mislead clients, and directed that expeditious correction was required even absent a violation finding.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Inadvertent Marketing Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Despite the Board's finding of no violation, Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained to take expeditious corrective action to eliminate any false impressions created by continued listing of Engineer X in promotional materials — the non-violation finding did not license continued inaccuracy, and failure to correct expeditiously risked escalation to ethical breach.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Board guidance on inadvertent inaccuracy
sourcetext: Having said this, we must make clear that we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
temporalscope: Post-departure of Engineer X through correction of all promotional materials
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: Having said this, we must make clear that we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
textreferences: We do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.133175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Inadvertent Oversight vs. Intentional Misrepresentation Ethical Distinction — Engineer X Case
type: InadvertentOversightvs.IntentionalMisrepresentationEthicalDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Inadvertent Oversight vs. Intentional Misrepresentation Ethical Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to distinguish Engineer Z's inadvertent oversight (no malicious intent, no purposeful enhancement of qualifications) from Engineer B's intentional misrepresentation in BER 83-1, calibrating the ethical finding to reflect no violation while still requiring corrective action.
casecontext: Ethics analysis distinguishing Engineer Z's inadvertent brochure inaccuracy from Engineer B's intentional misrepresentation in BER 83-1
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Board finding that Engineer Z's actions appeared to be oversight without malice or intent, distinguishing this from cases where unethical conduct occurred without intentional action, and declining to find a violation while still requiring expeditious correction
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z / NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
textreferences: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
textreferences: While this Board has found that unethical conduct in the past occurred in the absence of intentional actions, we do not consider the facts of this case to be of a nature to make such a finding.
textreferences: we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.131514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction — Engineer X
type: Key-EmployeevsNon-Key-EmployeeBrochureListingMaterialityDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z required the capability to distinguish between the listing of a departed key employee — which constitutes a material misrepresentation — and the listing of Engineer X as a non-key associate whose departure did not materially alter the firm's overall qualification profile, using this distinction to correctly calibrate the ethical obligations arising from continued post-departure brochure listings.
casecontext: The Board distinguished this case from BER 83-1 (key employee violation) based on Engineer X's non-key status and the non-significant hydrology practice area
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing that Engineer X was not a key employee and that hydrology was not a significant portion of firm work, thereby placing the continued listing in a different ethical category than BER 83-1's key-employee violation
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.130660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Lists X on Resume
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal, Firm Y
foreseen unintended effects: Clients may be misled into believing Engineer X would be available to work on awarded projects
foreseen unintended effects: Prospective clients reviewing the firm resume may rely on Engineer X's listed expertise when selecting Firm Y for hydrology-related projects
fulfills obligation text: Ongoing obligation to maintain firm documentation for business purposes
guided by principle text: Accuracy and honesty in firm representations
guided by principle text: Timely correction of material inaccuracies in professional documents
guided by principle text: Transparency with prospective clients regarding firm capabilities
has agent: Engineer Z
has mental state: negligent or inadvertent; consistent with Board's characterization of oversight without malice
intended outcome: Maintain a comprehensive and competitive firm resume for business development purposes
raises obligation text: Obligation to accurately represent firm personnel on official firm documents
raises obligation text: Obligation to avoid misrepresentation of pertinent facts in firm qualifications documents
raises obligation text: Obligation to correct known inaccuracies in client-facing materials within a reasonable time
requires capability text: Firm administration and document management
requires capability text: Judgment about the significance of individual personnel listings relative to overall firm qualifications
requires capability text: Understanding of what constitutes a material misrepresentation in professional qualification documents
temporal marker: After receipt of Engineer X's two weeks notice; concurrent with brochure distribution decision
temporal sequence: 9
within competence: true
comment: Concurrent with continued brochure distribution, Engineer Z continues to list Engineer X on the firm's official resume after receiving her notice of departure. This is a distinct promotional document from the brochure and represents a separate decision to maintain inaccurate personnel records in client-facing materials.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Lists X on Resume → Brochures Become Inaccurate
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Concurrent with continued brochure distribution, Engineer Z continues to list Engineer X on the firm resume, compounding the misrepresentation of firm personnel
cause: Engineer Z Lists X on Resume
counterfactual: Had Engineer Z updated the firm resume upon receiving notice or at departure, the misrepresentation on this document would not have occurred
effect: Brochures Become Inaccurate
necessary factors: Engineer X's actual departure from the firm
necessary factors: Engineer X's name and qualifications appearing on the firm resume
necessary factors: Engineer Z's decision to continue listing Engineer X after receiving resignation notice
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer Z
sufficient factors: Continued listing of a departed employee on firm resumes, combined with active distribution, was sufficient to constitute a material misrepresentation of firm qualifications
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance — Engineer X Personnel Currency
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z, as principal of Firm Y, required the capability to maintain accurate and current marketing materials — including the firm brochure and resume — recognizing that upon Engineer X's actual departure, the obligation to update materials became immediate and that continued distribution without correction would constitute a breach of professional ethics.
casecontext: Engineer Z continued distributing brochures listing Engineer X after receiving notice of departure; the Board found an expeditious correction obligation arose upon actual departure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Maintaining awareness of Engineer X's employment status and the obligation to update brochures and firm resumes upon actual departure, including deploying expeditious correction mechanisms such as errata sheets
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.123608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application — Engineer X Brochure
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z was required to apply the two-part test for Section II.5.a violations — assessing both whether Engineer X's listing constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts AND whether the distribution was motivated by intent to enhance firm qualifications — recognizing that both elements must be present for a violation.
casecontext: Ethics analysis of Firm Y's continued brochure distribution listing Engineer X after departure notice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Application of the dual-element test resulting in a finding that neither element was clearly satisfied in the Engineer X case, distinguishing it from BER 83-1 where both elements were present
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
textreferences: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
textreferences: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.129858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application — Engineer X Brochure Listing
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Z required the capability to apply the two-part pertinent fact test — assessing (1) whether Engineer X's listing concerned pertinent facts given non-key status and non-significant practice area, and (2) whether distribution was motivated by intent to enhance firm qualifications — to determine whether continued brochure distribution violated NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
casecontext: The Board applied the pertinent fact dual-element test from BER 83-1 and BER 90-4 to evaluate Engineer Z's continued brochure distribution after Engineer X's notice of departure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Applying the dual-element test to conclude that continued distribution during the notice period was conditionally permissible given the totality of circumstances, while recognizing that post-departure continuation would require expeditious correction
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:59.300380+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.123249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Errata Sheet Reasonable Period Deployment Constraint Applied to Firm Y Brochures
type: ErrataSheetReasonablePeriodCorrectionDeploymentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board articulated specific correction mechanisms — errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, reprints — as the required response to discovered inaccuracies in printed promotional materials, establishing a reasonable-period deadline for their deployment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Errata Sheet Reasonable Period Correction Deployment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained to deploy errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints within a reasonable period of time to correct the inaccurate listing of Engineer X in promotional materials, particularly given that the firm had reason to believe a misunderstanding might occur; failure to deploy these low-cost mechanisms within a reasonable period risked ethical breach.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Board guidance on marketing material correction
sourcetext: In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
temporalscope: Within a reasonable period following Engineer X's departure from Firm Y
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.133321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Firm Y Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance — Engineer X Personnel Listing
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm Y and Engineer Z bore an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate and current marketing materials, including the firm brochure and resume, requiring proactive steps to ensure personnel listings reflected current firm composition.
casecontext: Ongoing marketing material accuracy obligation for Firm Y's brochure and resume listing Engineer X
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Board statement that engineering firms using printed materials should take reasonable steps to ensure such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm Y / Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
textreferences: engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
textreferences: we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.131371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Key Employee Status Materiality Threshold Applied to Engineer X Departure
type: KeyEmployeeStatusMaterialityThresholdBrochureListingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Unlike BER Case 83-1 where Engineer A was explicitly listed as a key employee, Engineer X was not designated as a key employee in Firm Y's promotional materials, triggering a different analytical framework.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Key Employee Status Materiality Threshold Brochure Listing Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained to assess whether Engineer X's departure triggered the heightened key-employee prohibition or the more contextual non-key-employee materiality assessment; the absence of any 'key employee' designation or highlighting of Engineer X's hydrology expertise in promotional materials constrained the analysis to the less restrictive non-key-employee framework.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1 distinguished
sourcetext: In BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer X's notice of departure and through post-departure brochure distribution
textreferences: However, under the facts of the instant case, there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
textreferences: In BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm.
textreferences: Nor is there any effort or attempt on the part of Firm Y to highlight the activities or achievements of Engineer X in the field of hydrology.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.132572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse Marketing Correction Applied to Firm Y Brochure Correction Obligation
type: LogisticalDifficultyNon-ExcuseforMarketingCorrectionDelayConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board acknowledged the realities of firm practice and logistical problems in marketing but explicitly stated these did not excuse failure to expeditiously correct false impressions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse for Marketing Correction Delay Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained from using the logistical difficulties of brochure distribution, printing costs, or administrative burden as justifications for delaying correction of the inaccurate listing of Engineer X — the availability of low-cost correction mechanisms eliminated any logistical excuse for indefinite delay.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Board guidance on marketing material correction
sourcetext: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
temporalscope: Following Engineer X's departure from Firm Y
textreferences: In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies.
textreferences: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse for Marketing Correction Delay — Engineer Z Firm Y Brochure
type: LogisticalDifficultyNon-ExcuseforMarketingCorrectionDelayConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The practical reality of pre-printed brochures does not excuse indefinite delay in correction; proportionate mechanisms must be deployed expeditiously
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse for Marketing Correction Delay Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z cannot rely on the logistical difficulty or cost of reprinting Firm Y's brochures as a justification for indefinitely continuing to distribute materials listing Engineer X as a current employee after her departure; Engineer Z is constrained to deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms such as errata sheets, cover letters, or strike-outs within a reasonable period.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1; BER Case 90-4
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y onward
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.125031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Proportional Deployment — Engineer Z Firm Y Engineer X Departure
type: Low-CostCorrectionMechanismProportionalDeploymentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Given that Engineer X is a non-key employee (hydrology not a significant percentage of firm work), proportionate low-cost correction mechanisms may suffice rather than full reprinting
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Proportional Deployment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z is constrained to deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters noting Engineer X's departure, or strike-outs on existing brochures — within a reasonable period after Engineer X's departure, rather than continuing to distribute uncorrected materials; the proportionality of the correction mechanism must match the materiality of the misrepresentation.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 90-4
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y onward
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.125175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Marketing Material Accuracy Correction Standard (BER Guidance)
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyCorrectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE BER Guidance on Engineering Firm Marketing Material Correction Obligations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.392246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.392246+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Marketing Material Accuracy Correction Standard
sourcetext: we believe engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior
textreferences: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur
textreferences: we believe engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as affirmative guidance to engineering firms using printed promotional materials
usedincontext: Articulated by the Board as a normative standard for how engineering firms must handle discovered inaccuracies in promotional brochures and resumes, specifying remediation mechanisms and the ethical risk of inaction
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.117969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Applied to Firm Y Personnel Listings
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board articulated a general standard that engineering firms using printed materials must take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and currency, applicable to Firm Y's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X after her departure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained by an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate and current marketing materials — including brochures and firm resumes listing personnel — requiring reasonable proactive steps to ensure accuracy and prohibiting continued use of materials known to be inaccurate without correction.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Board guidance on printed marketing material accuracy
sourcetext: We believe engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
temporalscope: Ongoing throughout firm marketing activities; heightened upon Engineer X's departure notice
textreferences: We believe engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
textreferences: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.133483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance — Engineer Z Firm Y Brochure Post-Notice
type: MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Z continued distributing brochures listing Engineer X without correction after receiving notice; the ongoing accuracy maintenance obligation required expeditious corrective action
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z bears an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate and current marketing materials for Firm Y, including the firm brochure and firm resume; upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice of departure, Engineer Z acquired actual knowledge that these materials would become inaccurate, triggering the obligation to plan and execute expeditious correction.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1; BER Case 90-4
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer X's notice of departure onward, with heightened urgency post-departure
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.124892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Misrepresentation-in-Business-Dealings-Standard
type: MisrepresentationinBusinessDealingsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics practice
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
usedby: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
usedincontext: Governs Engineer Z's prohibition against making false or misleading statements about firm personnel status in commercial marketing materials distributed to prospective clients after Engineer X has given notice of departure
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.116237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
usedby: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y); Engineer X (departing associate)
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer Z's obligation not to misrepresent firm personnel and qualifications after Engineer X has given notice of departure
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.115914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

NSPE BER Advertising Ethics BER Precedent Corpus Navigation — BER 83-1 Retrieval and Application
type: AdvertisingEthicsBERPrecedentCorpusNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advertising Ethics BER Precedent Corpus Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to navigate the BER precedent corpus on advertising ethics, retrieving BER Case 83-1 as the controlling precedent for brochure personnel misrepresentation and applying it to the present case through careful factual distinction.
casecontext: Ethics analysis of Firm Y's continued brochure distribution listing Engineer X, using BER 83-1 as the primary precedent
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Retrieval and detailed analysis of BER Case 83-1 as the primary precedent for evaluating the ethics of continued brochure distribution listing a departed engineer, followed by careful factual distinction to reach a different conclusion in the present case
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The Board has, in recent years, had occasion to consider a case similar to the instant case.
textreferences: In Case BER 83-1, Engineer A worked for Engineer B.
textreferences: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
textreferences: The Board has, in recent years, had occasion to consider a case similar to the instant case.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.132278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

NSPE BER Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness — Brave New World Context
type: AdvertisingEthicsHistoricalEvolutionAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated awareness of the historical evolution of engineering advertising ethics — from strict proscriptions to a liberalized environment — and applied this context to understand why truthfulness and non-deception standards are now more important than ever in the post-liberalization 'brave new world.'
casecontext: Contextual framing of the brochure personnel misrepresentation case within the broader evolution of engineering advertising ethics
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Board's framing of the case within the context of the explosion of promotional activities following the elimination of legal and ethical proscriptions on engineering advertising
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
textreferences: In recent years, the engineering profession much in the same manner as the legal and medical professions, has seen a virtual explosion of activities on the part of individual practitioners as well as firms to heighten their level of recognition in the eyes of prospective clients.
textreferences: With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.131834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

NSPE BER Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation — BER 83-1 vs Present Case
type: BERDual-PrecedentBrochurePersonnelMisrepresentationSpectrumTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to triangulate between BER Case 83-1 (key employee listed post-termination with intent — violation) and the present case (non-key employee listed without highlighting or intent — no violation) to correctly locate the present case on the permissible side of the spectrum.
casecontext: Ethics review of Firm Y's continued brochure distribution listing Engineer X after departure notice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Detailed factual comparison identifying that Engineer X was not a key employee, was not highlighted, hydrology was not a significant firm service area, and there was no evident intent to enhance qualifications — distinguishing the present case from BER 83-1
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
textreferences: In the BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm.
textreferences: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.130502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.5.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.392246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.392246+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Interpreting the meaning of Section II.5.a, we noted that the words 'pertinent facts' are those facts that have a clear and decisive relevance to a matter at hand.
textreferences: Interpreting the meaning of Section II.5.a, we noted that the words 'pertinent facts' are those facts that have a clear and decisive relevance to a matter at hand.
textreferences: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the ethical obligations of Firm Y and Engineer Z
usedincontext: The specific code provision interpreted by the Board to determine whether Firm Y's inclusion of Engineer X's name in promotional materials constitutes misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts' with 'intent and purpose' to enhance firm qualifications; both elements must be present for a violation
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.117824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Non-Key-Employee Departure Brochure Listing Materiality Threshold — Engineer X Hydrology Non-Significant Percentage
type: Non-Key-EmployeeDepartureBrochureListingMaterialityThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The non-significant hydrology work percentage is the critical factual distinction that may prevent automatic application of the key-employee brochure prohibition and requires a proportionality and materiality assessment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Non-Key-Employee Departure Brochure Listing Materiality Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Because Engineer X's hydrology expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of Firm Y's work, Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in firm brochures and resumes during the notice period does not automatically constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts of clear and decisive relevance; Engineer Z is constrained to conduct a case-by-case materiality assessment rather than automatically applying the stricter key-employee prohibition, while still being required to correct the listing expeditiously after departure.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1; BER Case 90-4
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
temporalscope: During the two-week notice period and immediately following Engineer X's actual departure
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.126001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Non-Principal Employee Departure Competitive Conduct Proportionality — Engineer X Associate Status
type: Non-PrincipalEmployeeDepartureCompetitiveConductProportionalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X is described as an 'associate with the firm' rather than a principal or partner, which calibrates the goodwill-preservation obligations applicable to her departure
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer X
constraintclass: Non-Principal Employee Departure Competitive Conduct Proportionality Constraint
constraintstatement: As an associate (non-principal) of Firm Y, Engineer X is held to a somewhat less stringent standard regarding goodwill-preservation obligations owed to Firm Y upon departure, while remaining fully subject to prohibitions on misrepresentation, disparagement, and exploitation of specialized knowledge; Engineer X's associate status is a relevant mitigating factor in assessing the ethical permissibility of her post-departure competitive conduct.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, 97-2; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
temporalscope: At the time of and following Engineer X's departure from Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.126284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Notice-Period Brochure Personnel Prospective Client Appraisal — Engineer Z Engineer X Departure
type: Notice-PeriodBrochurePersonnelProspectiveClientAppraisalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Z continued distributing brochures listing Engineer X after receiving two weeks notice; during this notice period, passive distribution without disclosure of pending departure may constitute misrepresentation if Engineer X is a key employee
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Notice-Period Brochure Personnel Prospective Client Appraisal Constraint
constraintstatement: During the two-week notice period after Engineer X gave notice of departure, Engineer Z is constrained — if continuing to distribute brochures listing Engineer X — to affirmatively apprise each prospective client of Engineer X's pending departure so that the client can make an informed qualification assessment, rather than passively distributing materials implying Engineer X's continued availability.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
temporalscope: During the two-week notice period between Engineer X's notice of departure and actual departure
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.124608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Notice-Period Key Employee Pending Departure Prospective Client Appraisal Applied to BER 83-1 Engineer B
type: Notice-PeriodBrochurePersonnelProspectiveClientAppraisalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board in BER Case 83-1 ruled that distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee during the notice period was permissible only if Engineer B apprised prospective clients of the pending termination during negotiation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B (BER Case 83-1)
constraintclass: Notice-Period Brochure Personnel Prospective Client Appraisal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained, during the period after Engineer A received termination notice but before actual departure, to apprise each prospective client during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination when distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee — passive distribution without such disclosure constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination.
temporalscope: During the period after Engineer A's termination notice through Engineer A's actual departure
textreferences: The Board noted that this 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 Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.133819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Notice Period Begins
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Employee_Status_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Promotional_Material_Currency_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer X transitions from fully active employee to departing employee; firm enters a grace window during which materials listing Engineer X remain technically accurate but are imminently at risk of becoming misleading
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_X_Must_Continue_Duties_During_Notice
creates obligation: Engineer_Z_Must_Assess_Brochure_Accuracy
creates obligation: Firm_Must_Plan_Material_Updates
emergency status: medium
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Day 0, moment Engineer X delivers notice to Engineer Z
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: Upon Engineer X submitting resignation notice, a formal two-week notice period is automatically triggered, creating a transitional employment state with ambiguous professional representation implications.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Oversight Finding Issued
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Future_Conduct_Caution_Constraint
activates constraint: Prompt_Material_Update_Norm_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer Z is formally cleared of an ethical violation but is placed on notice that future similar conduct may not receive the same charitable interpretation; the profession receives a clarifying signal about the notice-period versus post-departure distinction
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_Z_Must_Update_Materials_Promptly_Going_Forward
creates obligation: Profession_Must_Treat_Oversight_Finding_As_Cautionary_Not_Permissive
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Conclusion of Board deliberation on current case
temporal sequence: 13
urgency level: low
comment: The Board's determination that Engineer Z's conduct constituted an oversight rather than an ethical violation becomes an official outcome of the adjudicatory process, with normative implications for how similar future conduct will be characterized.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.134698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test — Engineer Z Brochure Listing Engineer X
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The dual-element test is the operative analytical framework for determining whether Engineer Z's conduct constitutes an ethical violation; the non-key-employee status of Engineer X (hydrology not a significant percentage of firm work) affects the pertinent-fact element
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and firm resume must be evaluated against both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) whether Engineer X's departure constitutes a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients, and (2) whether Engineer Z's continued distribution was done with intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications — with the non-significant hydrology work percentage bearing on element (1) and the absence of corrective action bearing on element (2).
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of continued brochure distribution after Engineer X's notice and departure
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.124752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Firm Y Brochure Listing
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y; Firm Y continued to list Engineer X in brochures and firm resume; Board applied the dual-element test and found neither element satisfied under the totality of circumstances.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained by the requirement that both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test — (1) actual misrepresentation of facts of clear and decisive relevance, and (2) intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications — must be present before a violation of Section II.5.a could be found; the absence of either element precluded a violation finding.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
temporalscope: During and after Engineer X's two-week notice period through post-departure brochure distribution
textreferences: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
textreferences: it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.132426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Prohibition Applied to BER 83-1 Engineer B
type: Post-DepartureKeyEmployeeBrochureDistributionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board ruled in BER Case 83-1 that post-termination distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee was unethical, constituting a clear violation of Section II.5.a on both elements of the dual-element test.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B (BER Case 83-1)
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 — this constituted a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance firm qualifications, regardless of the cost of reprinting or the prior printing of the materials.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
temporalscope: After Engineer A's actual termination from Engineer B's firm
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm. The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.133963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Prohibition — Engineer Z Firm Y Engineer X
type: Post-DepartureKeyEmployeeBrochureDistributionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Z continued distributing brochures listing Engineer X after Engineer X gave two weeks notice; the prohibition applies most strictly post-departure but its applicability depends on whether Engineer X is a key employee
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z is prohibited from continuing to distribute Firm Y's brochure and firm resume listing Engineer X as a current employee after Engineer X has actually departed from the firm, as this constitutes a misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — subject to the threshold question of whether Engineer X qualifies as a 'key employee' given that hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of firm work.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y onward
textreferences: Engineer X gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.124467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Prospective Client Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer
type: Brochure-RelyingEngineeringServicesConsumer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'harm_type': 'Misrepresentation of available expertise (hydrology)', 'reliance_basis': 'Firm brochure and firm resume listing Engineer X as current staff'}
caseinvolvement: Prospective clients and members of the public who read Firm Y's brochure and firm resume reasonably rely on the listed personnel to assess the firm's hydrology expertise, and are misled by the continued listing of Engineer X as a current employee after she has given notice of departure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:36.259367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:36.259367+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'misled_by', 'target': 'Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_client_of', 'target': 'Firm Y'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer
sourcetext: Engineer Z continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: Engineer Z continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.115770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Prospective Clients of Engineer B's Firm Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
type: ProspectiveEngineeringServicesClientRelyingonFirmBrochure
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'harm': 'Potentially misled about availability of key personnel', 'case_reference': 'BER 83-1'}
caseinvolvement: Prospective clients who received Engineer B's brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee and may have relied on Engineer A's availability in selecting the firm, thereby being materially misled.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'service_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
sourcetext: The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure
textreferences: The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure
textreferences: this 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 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.119985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Prospective Clients of Firm Y Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Modeling
type: BrochureReaderReasonableExpectationModelingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Modeling Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm Y and Engineer Z needed to model the reasonable expectations of prospective clients who read the firm's brochure — specifically, that listed personnel are currently available for future projects — and to use that modeled expectation to assess whether continued listing of Engineer X could mislead prospective clients.
casecontext: Assessment of whether continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure could mislead prospective clients into believing Engineer X would be available for future projects
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Board's analysis that prospective clients may rely on listed personnel to assess firm qualifications, and that the names of firm members are often quite significant to clients selecting a firm
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:45.175518+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm Y / Engineer Z
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure.
textreferences: The Board noted that this 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 as represented in the brochure.
textreferences: We said that the names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.132134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Prospective Clients of Firm Y Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
type: ProspectiveEngineeringServicesClientRelyingonFirmBrochure
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'harm': 'Minimal — no material misrepresentation found', 'case_reference': 'Instant case'}
caseinvolvement: Prospective clients who received Firm Y's brochure and resume listing Engineer X. The Board found that because Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee and hydrology was not a significant service area, the listing did not constitute a material misrepresentation to these clients.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'service_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
sourcetext: the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
textreferences: any false impressions which might exist
textreferences: the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.120123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Qualification-Representation-Standard
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: Professional engineering ethics practice
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:42.834942+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
usedby: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
usedincontext: Governs Engineer Z's obligation to accurately represent firm personnel and capabilities; prohibits continued listing of Engineer X in firm brochures and resumes after she has given notice of resignation, as this overstates the firm's current hydrological expertise
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.116059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: At what precise point after Engineer X's departure notice does continued brochure distribution transition from a permissible administrative lag into an affirmative misrepresentation, and does the Board's 'oversight' finding implicitly establish a time limit on that permissibility?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.778833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does Engineer X bear any independent ethical obligation to actively demand that Firm Y correct its brochures and firm resume after giving notice, and if Firm Y refuses, does Engineer X have a duty to notify prospective clients or the NSPE?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the fact that hydrology constitutes a non-significant percentage of Firm Y's work actually protect prospective clients, or does it instead increase their vulnerability because they may be less equipped to independently verify Engineer X's availability for a specialized engagement?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should the Board have separately evaluated whether Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X on the firm resume — a document typically submitted in response to specific client solicitations — carries a higher materiality threshold than a general promotional brochure, given that resume submissions are more directly tied to client selection decisions?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability principle conflict with the Proactive Accuracy Assurance obligation, in that accepting inadvertent oversight as a mitigating factor effectively rewards firms that maintain no systematic process for updating marketing materials, thereby undermining the proactive duty that the same ethical framework demands?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779181
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Notice-Period Conditional Permissibility principle conflict with the Brochure Personnel Currency Obligation, since the former permits continued distribution of materials listing a departing engineer while the latter demands immediate updating upon receipt of departure notice — and if both apply simultaneously, which principle governs when a prospective client is actually harmed by relying on the stale listing?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation conflict with the Honesty Obligation in Engineering Firm Promotional Activities, in that the former excuses inaccuracy based on the relative obscurity of the listed engineer while the latter imposes an unconditional duty of truthfulness regardless of whether the inaccuracy is likely to be noticed or acted upon by a prospective client?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Comparative Case Distinguishing principle — which separates the present case from BER 83-1 on the basis of Engineer X's non-key status — conflict with the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test, given that the test requires a case-by-case assessment of whether a fact would influence a client's decision, and a client specifically seeking hydrology services might find Engineer X's departure just as material as a key employee's departure regardless of her general prominence within the firm?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer Z fulfill a categorical duty of honesty by continuing to distribute brochures listing Engineer X as a current employee after receiving her resignation notice, regardless of whether the omission was materially harmful to prospective clients?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the Board's permissive ruling — allowing continued brochure distribution during the notice period for non-key employees — produce better aggregate outcomes for firms, departing engineers, and prospective clients than a stricter rule requiring immediate correction upon receipt of any resignation notice?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, did Engineer Z demonstrate the professional integrity and diligence expected of a firm principal by failing to proactively update marketing materials upon receiving Engineer X's resignation notice, even if the omission was inadvertent and Engineer X was not a key employee?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the duty imposed by NSPE Code Section II.5.a — prohibiting misrepresentation of associates' qualifications — apply with equal force regardless of whether the misrepresented engineer is a key employee or a non-prominent associate, such that the Board's materiality-based distinction between Engineer Z's conduct and Engineer B's conduct in BER 83-1 is ethically unjustifiable as a matter of principle?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the Board have reached a different conclusion if Engineer X's hydrology expertise had constituted a significant and prominently marketed percentage of Firm Y's billable work, effectively making her a 'key employee' analogous to Engineer A in BER 83-1?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer Z had continued distributing the brochure listing Engineer X not merely through the two-week notice period but for several months after Engineer X had actually departed and joined a competing firm, would the Board's finding of 'not unethical' still hold, and at what point does an inadvertent oversight become an actionable misrepresentation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would the ethical analysis have changed if Engineer X had actively objected to being listed in Firm Y's brochure and resume after giving notice, thereby triggering an explicit and documented obligation on Engineer Z to remove her credentials from all marketing materials immediately?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Firm Y had deployed an errata sheet or written addendum to all prospective clients who received the outdated brochure within days of Engineer X's notice, would that proactive corrective action have rendered the initial continued distribution entirely moot as an ethical concern, and does the Board's analysis implicitly require such corrective action as a condition of its permissive ruling?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.779825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.783444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:47:14.782976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Specialty Practice Percentage Non-Significance Applied to Engineer X Hydrology Expertise
type: SpecialtyPracticePercentageNon-SignificanceBrochureListingPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X was one of few engineers in Firm Y with hydrology expertise, but hydrology did not constitute a significant portion of Firm Y's services, reducing the materiality of Engineer X's departure to prospective clients.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Z and Firm Y
constraintclass: Specialty Practice Percentage Non-Significance Brochure Listing Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were constrained to assess whether hydrology — Engineer X's area of specialty — constituted a significant portion of Firm Y's overall services; the Board's finding that hydrology did not constitute a significant portion of Firm Y's services constrained the misrepresentation analysis to permit continued listing without automatic violation, notwithstanding Engineer X's relative scarcity within the firm.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:53.988621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1 distinguished
sourcetext: While the facts reveal that Engineer X is one of the few engineers in the firm with expertise in the field of hydrology, Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.
temporalscope: During and after Engineer X's notice period
textreferences: In addition, it appears that this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: While the facts reveal that Engineer X is one of the few engineers in the firm with expertise in the field of hydrology, Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.132713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791314+00:00
value: Precedent cases imposing strong ethical obligations do not automatically apply when key distinguishing facts — particularly the prominence and materiality of the listed engineer — are absent.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789452+00:00
value: Precedent cases imposing strong ethical obligations do not automatically apply when key distinguishing facts — particularly the prominence and materiality of the listed engineer — are absent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.788356+00:00
value: Engineer X's obligation is secondary to Firm Y's primary obligation to update materials; however, if Engineer X becomes aware of continued misrepresentation, she should take steps to correct it.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790921+00:00
value: Engineer X's departure from Firm Y to join another firm is ethically permissible under the at-will employment symmetry principle, as there is no indication of a formal non-compete agreement or acquisition of particular specialized knowledge that would restrict her mobility; Engineer X is constrained only by prohibitions on misrepresentation, disparagement, and exploitation of insider knowledge in her post-departure competitive conduct.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790779+00:00
value: The ethical assessment of Engineer X's departure and Engineer Z's subsequent brochure conduct must balance three interests: (1) Engineer X's right to professional mobility and career development; (2) Firm Y/Engineer Z's legitimate interest in maintaining business goodwill and accurate representation; and (3) clients' right to accurate knowledge of firm personnel qualifications — with no single interest categorically paramount, and the non-key-employee status of Engineer X affecting the weight of Firm Y's goodwill interest.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791939+00:00
value: The dual-element test exculpates Engineer Z from a formal violation while still recommending corrective action as best practice.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789801+00:00
value: The materiality exculpation does not eliminate the recommendation to update materials; it merely determines that the failure to do so immediately does not constitute an ethics code violation in this specific factual configuration.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791876+00:00
value: Engineer X's obligation is secondary to Firm Y's primary obligation to update materials; however, if Engineer X becomes aware of continued misrepresentation, she should take steps to correct it.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.786532+00:00
value: The Board's no-violation finding for the notice period does not eliminate the expeditious correction obligation post-departure; the principle recommends correction as best practice even absent a formal violation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.787449+00:00
value: While the currency obligation exists, the Board's finding of no violation reflects that the obligation's breach threshold is higher when the listed engineer is not a key employee in a significant practice area.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790230+00:00
value: Actual knowledge of the inaccuracy (departure notice) triggers the correction obligation; continued inaction after Engineer X's actual departure is a more serious concern than inaction during the notice period.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.788238+00:00
value: Permissibility during the notice period is conditioned on non-prominence and non-pertinence; the firm remains obligated to update materials promptly after Engineer X's actual departure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789545+00:00
value: While the currency obligation exists, the Board's finding of no violation reflects that the obligation's breach threshold is higher when the listed engineer is not a key employee in a significant practice area.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.788498+00:00
value: The dual-element test exculpates Engineer Z from a formal violation while still recommending corrective action as best practice.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790666+00:00
value: The dual-element test exculpates Engineer Z from a formal violation while still recommending corrective action as best practice.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791251+00:00
value: The Board's no-violation finding for the notice period does not eliminate the expeditious correction obligation post-departure; the principle recommends correction as best practice even absent a formal violation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789338+00:00
value: The absence of malice and enhancement intent, combined with the non-pertinent-fact status of Engineer X's listing, collectively precluded a violation finding, while the Board still urged expeditious corrective action.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791378+00:00
value: The Board's no-violation finding for the notice period does not eliminate the expeditious correction obligation post-departure; the principle recommends correction as best practice even absent a formal violation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791815+00:00
value: Permissibility during the notice period is conditioned on non-prominence and non-pertinence; the firm remains obligated to update materials promptly after Engineer X's actual departure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.792029+00:00
value: The Board acknowledged logistical realities while affirming that they do not excuse failure to take reasonable corrective steps within a reasonable period.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791448+00:00
value: Honesty is the foundational obligation; logistical realities and inadvertent oversight may mitigate culpability but do not eliminate the underlying duty to be accurate.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790324+00:00
value: The two-week notice period is brief; the practical impossibility of immediate reprinting, combined with the non-pertinence of Engineer X's specialty, renders the continued distribution during this period conditionally permissible rather than violative.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789206+00:00
value: Permissibility during the notice period is conditioned on non-prominence and non-pertinence; the firm remains obligated to update materials promptly after Engineer X's actual departure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.788637+00:00
value: The Board acknowledged logistical realities while affirming that they do not excuse failure to take reasonable corrective steps within a reasonable period.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791119+00:00
value: Transparency is served through expeditious corrective mechanisms rather than requiring instantaneous reprinting; the standard is reasonableness calibrated to the risk of client misunderstanding.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.787713+00:00
value: The reduced culpability for the original oversight does not eliminate the forward-looking corrective obligation; the two principles operate on different temporal axes.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791186+00:00
value: The Board found no violation but emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z were not condoned in allowing inaccurate materials to persist; the non-key status of Engineer X reduced urgency but did not eliminate the correction obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.788910+00:00
value: Because Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee and the firm's conduct appeared to be oversight rather than deliberate enhancement, the Board declined to find a violation despite the factual inaccuracy.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.788040+00:00
value: The Board affirmed the BER 83-1 ruling as correct on its facts while declining to extend it to the present case due to the absence of the 'key employee' designation and the lack of demonstrated enhancement intent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789985+00:00
value: The Board affirmed the BER 83-1 ruling as correct on its facts while declining to extend it to the present case due to the absence of the 'key employee' designation and the lack of demonstrated enhancement intent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791532+00:00
value: While the currency obligation exists, the Board's finding of no violation reflects that the obligation's breach threshold is higher when the listed engineer is not a key employee in a significant practice area.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791750+00:00
value: The Board affirmed the BER 83-1 ruling as correct on its facts while declining to extend it to the present case due to the absence of the 'key employee' designation and the lack of demonstrated enhancement intent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.788778+00:00
value: The Board affirmed the BER 83-1 ruling as correct on its facts while declining to extend it to the present case due to the absence of the 'key employee' designation and the lack of demonstrated enhancement intent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791621+00:00
value: The reduced culpability for the original oversight does not eliminate the forward-looking corrective obligation; the two principles operate on different temporal axes.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790436+00:00
value: The absence of malice and enhancement intent, combined with the non-pertinent-fact status of Engineer X's listing, collectively precluded a violation finding, while the Board still urged expeditious corrective action.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791688+00:00
value: Because Engineer X's specialty is not a significant percentage of firm work and she is not highlighted as a key employee, the Board found the honesty violation threshold was not met — the listing was not pertinent enough to be decisively misleading.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.791049+00:00
value: Although Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with hydrology expertise, making that expertise scarce within the firm, Engineer Z is constrained from treating this internal scarcity as automatically elevating Engineer X to key-employee status for brochure-listing purposes, because hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work; the proportionality constraint requires that the ethical analysis weight client-facing materiality of the expertise over internal scarcity.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789065+00:00
value: The low materiality of Engineer X's listing, combined with the absence of enhancement intent, collectively precluded a violation finding.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790133+00:00
value: No balancing was available; the conduct unambiguously satisfied both elements of the violation standard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.790577+00:00
value: The Board acknowledged logistical realities while affirming that they do not excuse failure to take reasonable corrective steps within a reasonable period.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.787216+00:00
value: Honesty is the foundational obligation; logistical realities and inadvertent oversight may mitigate culpability but do not eliminate the underlying duty to be accurate.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.787882+00:00
value: Because Engineer X's specialty is not a significant percentage of firm work and she is not highlighted as a key employee, the Board found the honesty violation threshold was not met — the listing was not pertinent enough to be decisively misleading.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:11:54.789677+00:00
value: Because Engineer X's specialty is not a significant percentage of firm work and she is not highlighted as a key employee, the Board found the honesty violation threshold was not met — the listing was not pertinent enough to be decisively misleading.

inaccuracy arising in firm materials before corrective measures (errata sheets, reprints, etc.)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies.
from entity text: inaccuracy arising in firm materials
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: corrective measures (errata sheets, reprints, etc.)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: corrective measures errata sheets reprints etc
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.135201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As principal of Firm Y, Engineer Z bears professional accountability for the accuracy of the firm's marketing materials, including the obligation to monitor and update personnel listings when engineers give notice of departure.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the two-element test to Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and resume after departure, finding that neither element was satisfied: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee (no pertine

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X as a current employee after receiving two weeks notice implicates the fundamental honesty obligation — the brochure creates a false impression of current employment status.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the dual-element test — requiring both (1) that the listed information constitute a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection, and (2) that the firm acted with intent to enhance its qualifications

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z has actual knowledge of Engineer X's departure from the moment notice is given; this triggers an obligation to take expeditious corrective action on the brochure and firm resume, even if the failure to do so during the notice per

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 83-1, identifying the material factual distinction — Engineer A was highlighted as a 'key employee' while Engineer X was not — and explaining how that distinction altered the ethical

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice, Firm Y and Engineer Z incurred an obligation to assess whether ongoing brochure distribution required corrective disclosure — particularly for any active client negotiations where Engineer X's hy

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y's failure to proactively disclose Engineer X's pending departure in every brochure distribution does not constitute an unethical omission because Engineer X's hydrology specialty is not material — it would not have affected the decis

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineer X's hydrology expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of Firm Y's work and Engineer X is not highlighted as a key employee in the brochure, the continued listing does not meet the pertinent-fact threshold req

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the materiality exculpation principle to find that Engineer X's listing in Firm Y's brochure and resume — where Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee, hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's guidance that firms should employ errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints to correct inaccurate marketing materials reflects the transparency obligation requiring firms to ensure prospective clients have accurate

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Despite not finding a violation, the Board emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct the false impression c

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board found that Engineer Z and Firm Y's continued listing of Engineer X after departure reflected inadvertent oversight without malicious intent or deliberate purpose to enhance qualifications, and therefore did not rise to the level o

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y bears an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate, current marketing materials; Engineer X's departure creates a concrete trigger event requiring the firm to update its brochure and resume to remove Engineer X's name once her employme

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y's continued distribution of existing brochures listing Engineer X during the two-week notice period is conditionally permissible because Engineer X is not a key employee in a significant practice area, and there is no evidence of int

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board articulated a forward-looking obligation for engineering firms using printed promotional materials to take reasonable proactive steps — including periodic review and timely correction via errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 83-1, the Board ruled that Engineer B's distribution of previously printed brochures listing Engineer A during the active notice period was not unethical, provided Engineer B apprised prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 83-1, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a 'key employee' after termination satisfied both elements of the dual test: the 'key employee' designation constituted a pertinent fact misrepresentation,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's entire analysis of both BER 83-1 and the present case is grounded in the honesty obligation applicable to engineering firms' promotional activities, requiring that brochures and resumes not create false impressions about the per

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, upon giving notice and departing, bears an affirmative obligation to ensure Firm Y ceases representing her as a current employee in brochures and firm resumes distributed to prospective clients, protecting both her professional

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the two-element test to Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and resume after departure, finding that neither element was satisfied: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee (no pertine

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the dual-element test — requiring both (1) that the listed information constitute a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection, and (2) that the firm acted with intent to enhance its qualifications

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the two-element test to Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and resume after departure, finding that neither element was satisfied: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee (no pertine

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the dual-element test — requiring both (1) that the listed information constitute a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection, and (2) that the firm acted with intent to enhance its qualifications

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to ensure that continued listing of Engineer X in promotional materials satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test before distribution; the Board found that neither element was

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the dual-element test — requiring both (1) that the listed information constitute a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection, and (2) that the firm acted with intent to enhance its qualifications

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's entire analysis of both BER 83-1 and the present case is grounded in the honesty obligation applicable to engineering firms' promotional activities, requiring that brochures and resumes not create false impressions about the per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X as a current employee after receiving two weeks notice implicates the fundamental honesty obligation — the brochure creates a false impression of current employment status.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Despite not finding a violation, the Board emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct the false impression c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z has actual knowledge of Engineer X's departure from the moment notice is given; this triggers an obligation to take expeditious corrective action on the brochure and firm resume, even if the failure to do so during the notice per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z has actual knowledge of Engineer X's departure from the moment notice is given; this triggers an obligation to take expeditious corrective action on the brochure and firm resume, even if the failure to do so during the notice per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Despite not finding a violation, the Board emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct the false impression c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z has actual knowledge of Engineer X's departure from the moment notice is given; this triggers an obligation to take expeditious corrective action on the brochure and firm resume, even if the failure to do so during the notice per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Despite not finding a violation, the Board emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct the false impression c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y bears an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate, current marketing materials; Engineer X's departure creates a concrete trigger event requiring the firm to update its brochure and resume to remove Engineer X's name once her employme

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As principal of Firm Y, Engineer Z bears professional accountability for the accuracy of the firm's marketing materials, including the obligation to monitor and update personnel listings when engineers give notice of departure.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board articulated a forward-looking obligation for engineering firms using printed promotional materials to take reasonable proactive steps — including periodic review and timely correction via errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y bears an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate, current marketing materials; Engineer X's departure creates a concrete trigger event requiring the firm to update its brochure and resume to remove Engineer X's name once her employme

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's guidance that firms should employ errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints to correct inaccurate marketing materials reflects the transparency obligation requiring firms to ensure prospective clients have accurate

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Despite not finding a violation, the Board emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct the false impression c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board found that Engineer Z and Firm Y's continued listing of Engineer X after departure reflected inadvertent oversight without malicious intent or deliberate purpose to enhance qualifications, and therefore did not rise to the level o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineer X's hydrology expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of Firm Y's work and Engineer X is not highlighted as a key employee in the brochure, the continued listing does not meet the pertinent-fact threshold req

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the materiality exculpation principle to find that Engineer X's listing in Firm Y's brochure and resume — where Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee, hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineer X's hydrology expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of Firm Y's work and Engineer X is not highlighted as a key employee in the brochure, the continued listing does not meet the pertinent-fact threshold req

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y's failure to proactively disclose Engineer X's pending departure in every brochure distribution does not constitute an unethical omission because Engineer X's hydrology specialty is not material — it would not have affected the decis

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y's continued distribution of existing brochures listing Engineer X during the two-week notice period is conditionally permissible because Engineer X is not a key employee in a significant practice area, and there is no evidence of int

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 83-1, the Board ruled that Engineer B's distribution of previously printed brochures listing Engineer A during the active notice period was not unethical, provided Engineer B apprised prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 83-1, identifying the material factual distinction — Engineer A was highlighted as a 'key employee' while Engineer X was not — and explaining how that distinction altered the ethical

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 83-1, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a 'key employee' after termination satisfied both elements of the dual test: the 'key employee' designation constituted a pertinent fact misrepresentation,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 83-1, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a 'key employee' after termination satisfied both elements of the dual test: the 'key employee' designation constituted a pertinent fact misrepresentation,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's entire analysis of both BER 83-1 and the present case is grounded in the honesty obligation applicable to engineering firms' promotional activities, requiring that brochures and resumes not create false impressions about the per

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, upon giving notice and departing, bears an affirmative obligation to ensure Firm Y ceases representing her as a current employee in brochures and firm resumes distributed to prospective clients, protecting both her professional

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the two-element test to Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and resume after departure, finding that neither element was satisfied: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee (no pertine

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board found that Engineer Z and Firm Y's continued listing of Engineer X after departure reflected inadvertent oversight without malicious intent or deliberate purpose to enhance qualifications, and therefore did not rise to the level o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z was obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding Engineer X's departure — including Engineer X's non-key-employee status, the non-significant percentage of hydrology work,

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z was obligated to evaluate whether the continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and firm resume satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) whether Engineer X's listing constituted a perti

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z, as principal of Firm Y, bore an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate and current marketing materials, including the firm brochure and firm resume; Engineer X's two-week notice constituted a concrete trigger event requiring En

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z was obligated to conduct a case-by-case materiality assessment of whether continued distribution of Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X — a non-key associate whose hydrology expertise does not constitute a significant percentage

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z was obligated to recognize that continued distribution of Firm Y's existing printed brochures listing Engineer X during the two-week notice period was conditionally permissible — given Engineer X's non-key-employee status and the

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm Y and Engineer Z were obligated to take reasonable proactive steps to ensure that printed marketing materials — including brochures and resumes — remained as accurate and up-to-date as possible, anticipating foreseeable inaccuracies su

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Although the Board found that Engineer Z and Firm Y's continued listing of Engineer X reflected inadvertent oversight without malicious intent — reducing culpability for the original inaccuracy — Engineer Z and Firm Y remained obligated to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Despite not finding a violation, Engineer Z and Firm Y remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct any false impressions created by continued listi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — rather than treating logistical difficulty or printing costs as justification for c

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to ensure that all promotional materials — including brochures and resumes listing personnel — were truthful, not misleading, and not deceptive, consistent with NSPE Code Section II.5.a, which the Board

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to assess whether continued listing of Engineer X — a non-key employee whose area of expertise did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent fac

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from distributing promotional brochures listing Engineer A as a current key employee after Engineer A's actual termination and departure from the firm.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to ensure that continued listing of Engineer X in promotional materials satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test before distribution; the Board found that neither element was

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination, as this constituted a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance firm qualificatio

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, bore an affirmative obligation to take steps to ensure that Firm Y ceased representing her as a current employee in its brochure and firm resume, including notifying Enginee

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to ensure that all promotional materials — including brochures and resumes listing personnel — were truthful, not misleading, and not deceptive, consistent with NSPE Code Section II.5.a, which the Board

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z, Firm Y, and the ethics Board were obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts — including key-employee status, significance of practice area, and intent — rather than applying a categorical rule deriv

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to assess whether continued listing of Engineer X — a non-key employee whose area of expertise did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent fac

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Despite not finding a violation, Engineer Z and Firm Y remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct any false impressions created by continued listi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — rather than treating logistical difficulty or printing costs as justification for c

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z, upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice of departure, acquired actual knowledge that Firm Y's brochure and firm resume would become inaccurate upon Engineer X's departure, triggering an obligation to take expeditious correct

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Z was obligated, upon Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y, to take expeditious corrective action to remove Engineer X from the firm's brochure and firm resume, using low-cost mechanisms such as errata sheets or reprinting, so

At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility — Engineer X Departure from Firm Y
type: At-WillEmploymentSymmetryCompetitiveMobilityPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X gave two weeks notice and is moving to another firm; her mobility is ethically permissible and the ethical focus of the case is on Engineer Z's conduct, not Engineer X's departure decision
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer X
constraintclass: At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer X's departure from Firm Y to join another firm is ethically permissible under the at-will employment symmetry principle, as there is no indication of a formal non-compete agreement or acquisition of particular specialized knowledge that would restrict her mobility; Engineer X is constrained only by prohibitions on misrepresentation, disparagement, and exploitation of insider knowledge in her post-departure competitive conduct.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: medium
severity: low
source: NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, 97-2; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
temporalscope: At the time of and following Engineer X's departure from Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.125480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Hydrology Scarcity Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Proportionality — Engineer X Firm Y
type: HydrologyScarcityNon-Key-EmployeeBrochureListingProportionalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The internal scarcity of hydrology expertise within Firm Y does not automatically make Engineer X's departure a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients if hydrology is not a significant part of firm work
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y)
constraintclass: Hydrology Scarcity Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Proportionality Constraint
constraintstatement: Although Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with hydrology expertise, making that expertise scarce within the firm, Engineer Z is constrained from treating this internal scarcity as automatically elevating Engineer X to key-employee status for brochure-listing purposes, because hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work; the proportionality constraint requires that the ethical analysis weight client-facing materiality of the expertise over internal scarcity.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 83-1
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
temporalscope: During and after the two-week notice period
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.126145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Tripartite Departure Interest Balancing Framework — Engineer X Firm Y Engineer Z
type: TripartiteDepartureInterestBalancingFrameworkApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The three-party balancing framework governs both Engineer X's departure conduct and Engineer Z's brochure distribution conduct; Engineer X's non-key-employee status reduces the weight of Firm Y's goodwill interest
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer Z (principal of Firm Y) and Engineer X
constraintclass: Tripartite Departure Interest Balancing Framework Application Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethical assessment of Engineer X's departure and Engineer Z's subsequent brochure conduct must balance three interests: (1) Engineer X's right to professional mobility and career development; (2) Firm Y/Engineer Z's legitimate interest in maintaining business goodwill and accurate representation; and (3) clients' right to accurate knowledge of firm personnel qualifications — with no single interest categorically paramount, and the non-key-employee status of Engineer X affecting the weight of Firm Y's goodwill interest.
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:20:08.163425+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
temporalscope: Throughout the departure and post-departure period
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.125851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

BER83-1 Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Distribution
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: Prospective clients of Engineer B's firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
importance: high
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
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Engineer B's continued distribution of promotional brochure listing Engineer A as key employee after Engineer A's actual termination
terminatedby: Cessation of brochure distribution or correction of materials (implied by Board ruling)
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
textreferences: Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm
textreferences: it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination
triggeringevent: Engineer A's actual departure from Engineer B's firm following termination notice
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.118314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Brochure Personnel Currency Obligation Triggered by Engineer X Departure Notice
type: BrochurePersonnelCurrencyDisclosureDuringActiveNegotiationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume distributed after Engineer X's departure notice
balancingwith: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
balancingwith: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice, Firm Y and Engineer Z incurred an obligation to assess whether ongoing brochure distribution required corrective disclosure — particularly for any active client negotiations where Engineer X's hydrology expertise might be a material factor.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation is calibrated to the materiality of the departing engineer's credentials: where hydrology is not a significant practice area and Engineer X is not a key employee, the obligation to affirmatively disclose the pending departure in every distribution is attenuated, though not eliminated for active negotiations.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
tensionresolution: The Board found no violation, implicitly recognizing that the currency obligation is proportional to the materiality of the listed personnel's role in the firm's practice.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.120639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X At-Will Professional Mobility
type: At-WillProfessionalMobilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Exists throughout Engineer X's employment and through her departure
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
stateclass: At-Will Professional Mobility State
subject: Engineer X's legal and ethical freedom to depart Firm Y and join another firm
terminatedby: Not terminated; baseline state of professional employment
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
triggeringevent: No written non-compete or restrictive agreement referenced; Engineer X exercises her right to give notice and move to another firm
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.117067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
type: Brochure-MisrepresentedDepartingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation on Engineer X
has obligation: Engineer X Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation — Firm Y Brochure
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by associate role in engineering firm)', 'specialty': 'Hydrology', 'departure_type': 'Voluntary — two weeks notice given', 'seniority': 'Associate'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer X, an associate with hydrology expertise at Firm Y, gives two weeks notice of intent to move to another firm. After notice is given, Engineer Z continues to list Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume as a current employee, misrepresenting her status and the firm's available expertise.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:36.259367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:36.259367+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Firm Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'misrepresented_by', 'target': 'Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer Z'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer X is employed by Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer X is employed by Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
textreferences: Engineer Z continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.119670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Hydrology Expertise Scarcity in Firm Y
type: CompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Exists prior to and through Engineer X's departure; becomes acute upon her departure
affectedparties: Clients relying on Firm Y for hydrology services
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology
stateclass: Competence State
subject: Firm Y's internal distribution of hydrology competence concentrated in Engineer X
terminatedby: Firm Y hiring or developing additional hydrology-qualified personnel
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology
textreferences: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work
triggeringevent: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with hydrology expertise and is departing
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.116899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Intent-and-Purpose Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition for Engineer Z Firm Y
type: Intent-and-PurposeDual-ElementNon-SatisfactionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Grounding Firm Y Brochure Analysis
casecontext: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 83-1 by finding that the oversight-without-malice character of Engineer Z's conduct, combined with Engineer X's non-key status, meant both elements of the dual test were not satisfied.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability for Engineer Z and Firm Y
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Ethics Board adjudicating Engineer Z and Firm Y conduct
obligationclass: Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to recognize that because the facts of the present case failed to satisfy both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test — Engineer X was not a key employee (element 1 not clearly satisfied) and there was no demonstrable intent to enhance firm qualifications (element 2 not satisfied) — no violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a existed, even though corrective action remained advisable.
sourcetext: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
temporalscope: At the time of ethics adjudication
textreferences: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
textreferences: While this Board has found that unethical conduct in the past occurred in the absence of intentional actions, we do not consider the facts of this case to be of a nature to make such a finding.
textreferences: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.129558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B BER 83-1 Notice Period Conditional Permissibility
type: Notice-PeriodBrochureDistributionConditionalPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Brochure distribution during Engineer A's notice period
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER 83-1, the Board ruled that Engineer B's distribution of previously printed brochures listing Engineer A during the active notice period was not unethical, provided Engineer B apprised prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termination during negotiation.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Continued use of existing printed materials during a notice period is conditionally permissible when accompanied by contemporaneous corrective disclosure of the pending departure.
invokedby: Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination.
tensionresolution: The conditional permissibility is resolved by requiring active disclosure during negotiation, preserving honesty while accommodating the practical reality of printed materials.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
textreferences: The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client during negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.126773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Notice of Departure
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer X gives two weeks' notice through and beyond her actual departure
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer X's employment relationship with Firm Y
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case text; persists as a post-employment state
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
triggeringevent: Engineer X gives two weeks' notice of intent to move to another firm
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.116564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Omission Materiality Threshold Applied to Firm Y Non-Disclosure of Engineer X Departure
type: OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure distributions to prospective clients after Engineer X's departure notice
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm Y's failure to proactively disclose Engineer X's pending departure in every brochure distribution does not constitute an unethical omission because Engineer X's hydrology specialty is not material — it would not have affected the decision-making of prospective clients who are not specifically seeking hydrology services.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The materiality threshold for omission-based disclosure obligations is calibrated to whether the omitted information would affect client selection decisions; non-significant specialty areas fall below this threshold.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
sourcetext: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work
tensionresolution: Non-materiality of Engineer X's specialty means the omission of departure disclosure does not independently generate an ethics violation, though disclosure remains best practice.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.121612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Prohibition Applied to Engineer B BER 83-1
type: Post-Actual-DepartureBrochurePersonnelListingProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER83-1 Engineer B Post-Termination Brochure Distribution
casecontext: Engineer B continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee well after Engineer A's actual termination, constituting a per se misrepresentation of a pertinent fact.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Engineer B BER 83-1 Key Employee Misrepresentation Violation
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (BER 83-1)
obligationclass: Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Personnel Listing Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from distributing promotional brochures listing Engineer A as a current key employee after Engineer A's actual termination and departure from the firm.
sourcetext: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's actual termination onward
textreferences: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
textreferences: We criticized Engineer B's action and we affirm that criticism.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.128238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Professional Accountability of Engineer Z for Firm Marketing Accuracy
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume accuracy after Engineer X's departure notice
balancingwith: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: As principal of Firm Y, Engineer Z bears professional accountability for the accuracy of the firm's marketing materials, including the obligation to monitor and update personnel listings when engineers give notice of departure.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Professional accountability requires that firm principals not passively allow marketing materials to become inaccurate through neglect, even when the inaccuracy does not rise to a formal ethics violation.
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
tensionresolution: Accountability exists even where a formal violation is not found; Engineer Z should have updated materials promptly as a matter of professional responsibility.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.121763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Three-Party Interest Balancing on Engineer X Departure
type: Three-PartyEngineerDepartureInterestBalancingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer X's notice of departure onward
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
affectedparties: Prospective and current clients of Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
stateclass: Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing State
subject: The competing interests of Engineer X (mobility), Firm Y/Engineer Z (business continuity and accurate representation), and clients (accurate knowledge of firm capabilities)
terminatedby: Correction of firm materials and resolution of post-departure obligations
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
triggeringevent: Engineer X gives two weeks' notice and Engineer Z continues to list her on firm materials
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.117255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Case-by-Case Pertinence Assessment Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case
type: Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Three-Party Interest Balancing on Engineer X Departure
prevails over: Key Employee Brochure Listing Violation by Engineer B in BER 83-1
casecontext: The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 83-1, identifying the material factual distinction that Engineer A was highlighted as a key employee while Engineer X was not, and that hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's work.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Comparative Case Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z and Firm Y (and ethics adjudicators)
obligationclass: Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z, Firm Y, and the ethics Board were obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts — including key-employee status, significance of practice area, and intent — rather than applying a categorical rule derived from BER 83-1, resulting in a principled distinction between the two cases.
sourcetext: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
temporalscope: At the time of ethics review and adjudication
textreferences: However, under the facts of the instant case, there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
textreferences: In the BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm.
textreferences: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.128546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
type: Credential-MisrepresentingFirmPrincipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer B BER 83-1 Key Employee Misrepresentation Violation
adheres to principle: Engineer B BER 83-1 Notice Period Conditional Permissibility
adheres to principle: Honesty Obligation in Engineering Firm Promotional Activities
has obligation: Key Employee Brochure Listing Violation by Engineer B in BER 83-1
has obligation: Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Prohibition Applied to Engineer B BER 83-1
attributes: {'violation_found': 'Yes — distribution after actual termination', 'intent_finding': 'Intent to enhance firm qualifications found', 'case_reference': 'BER 83-1'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B terminated Engineer A but continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee, both during the notice period and after actual termination, with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications. Found to have acted unethically by continuing distribution after actual termination.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A (BER 83-1) Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'misrepresented_to', 'target': "Prospective Clients of Engineer B's Firm"}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure
textreferences: Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
textreferences: it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.119512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment — Engineer X Departure
type: Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Three-Party Interest Balancing on Engineer X Departure
casecontext: The Board's analysis in this case and BER 83-1 establishes that the ethical analysis of brochure personnel listing is fact-specific and not governed by categorical rules; Engineer Z's failure to conduct this assessment and take appropriate corrective action constitutes the violation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer Z Brochure Conduct
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z was obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding Engineer X's departure — including Engineer X's non-key-employee status, the non-significant percentage of hydrology work, and the absence of highlighting in the brochure — before determining whether continued distribution of the brochure constituted an ethical violation.
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.122204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation for Engineer X
type: Non-ProminentPersonnelListingMaterialityExculpationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X post-departure
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied the materiality exculpation principle to find that Engineer X's listing in Firm Y's brochure and resume — where Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee, hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services, and Engineer X was not the sole hydrology expert — did not constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts sufficient to establish an ethical violation.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Where a departing engineer appears incidentally in a general personnel list without prominent designation and their specialty is not central to the firm's practice, the materiality threshold for pertinent fact misrepresentation is not crossed.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
sourcetext: the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
tensionresolution: The low materiality of Engineer X's listing, combined with the absence of enhancement intent, collectively precluded a violation finding.
textreferences: Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.
textreferences: Nor is there any effort or attempt on the part of Firm Y to highlight the activities or achievements of Engineer X in the field of hydrology.
textreferences: there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
textreferences: this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.127421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance for Firm Y
type: PrintedMarketingMaterialProactiveAccuracyAssuranceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Firm Y Brochure Continued Listing of Departed Engineer X
casecontext: The Board articulated a forward-looking obligation for engineering firms using printed promotional materials to maintain proactive accuracy assurance processes, beyond merely reacting to known inaccuracies.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Marketing Communication Currency Obligation Applied to Firm Y Post-Departure
derived from principle: Proactive Accuracy Assurance for Firm Y Printed Marketing Materials
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Firm Y and Engineer Z
obligationclass: Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm Y and Engineer Z were obligated to take reasonable proactive steps to ensure that printed marketing materials — including brochures and resumes — remained as accurate and up-to-date as possible, anticipating foreseeable inaccuracies such as personnel departures and implementing processes for timely review and correction.
sourcetext: we believe engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
temporalscope: Ongoing; triggered specifically by Engineer X's notice of departure
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: we believe engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.128964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Transparency Obligation in Engineering Firm Marketing Communications
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Prospective clients relying on Firm Y brochure and resume
balancingwith: Logistical realities of firm practice
balancingwith: Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's guidance that firms should employ errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints to correct inaccurate marketing materials reflects the transparency obligation requiring firms to ensure prospective clients have accurate information about firm personnel and capabilities when making selection decisions.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Transparency in the marketing context requires affirmative corrective action when firms become aware that materials may create false impressions, enabling clients to make informed selection decisions.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
tensionresolution: Transparency is served through expeditious corrective mechanisms rather than requiring instantaneous reprinting; the standard is reasonableness calibrated to the risk of client misunderstanding.
textreferences: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
textreferences: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.127804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation on Engineer X
type: DepartedEngineerCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X after her departure
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer X, upon giving notice and departing, bears an affirmative obligation to ensure Firm Y ceases representing her as a current employee in brochures and firm resumes distributed to prospective clients, protecting both her professional reputation and the integrity of the credential-reliance system.
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Even though the primary ethical burden falls on Engineer Z/Firm Y, Engineer X is not entirely passive — she has an interest and an obligation to ensure her credentials are not misused after departure.
invokedby: Engineer X Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
principleclass: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
tensionresolution: Engineer X's obligation is secondary to Firm Y's primary obligation to update materials; however, if Engineer X becomes aware of continued misrepresentation, she should take steps to correct it.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.121435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Departure from Firm Y — Brochure Not Updated
type: NegligentMarketingOversightWithoutCorrectiveActionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer X's departure from Firm Y through the period Firm Y continued using materials listing Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
affectedparties: Prospective clients of Firm Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
stateclass: Negligent Marketing Oversight Without Corrective Action State
subject: Firm Y's continued inclusion of Engineer X's name in brochures and resumes after Engineer X's departure, characterized as oversight rather than intentional misrepresentation
terminatedby: Correction of brochures and resumes (recommended but not yet confirmed as completed)
textreferences: engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible
textreferences: the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent
textreferences: the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
textreferences: the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
textreferences: we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients
triggeringevent: Engineer X's departure from Firm Y without corresponding update to promotional materials
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.118828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Post-Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Expeditious Correction — Engineer X
type: Post-Notice-PeriodNon-Key-EmployeeBrochureListingExpeditiousCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer X Departure from Firm Y — Brochure Not Updated
prevails over: Oversight-Without-Malice Non-Condoning Inadvertent Inaccuracy Correction for Firm Y
casecontext: Engineer Z continued distributing brochures and firm resume listing Engineer X after Engineer X's actual departure. Even if the notice-period distribution was conditionally permissible given Engineer X's non-key status, post-departure continued distribution without correction constitutes a violation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered Upon Engineer X Departure
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Marketing Materials
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Post-Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Expeditious Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z was obligated, upon Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y, to take expeditious corrective action to remove Engineer X from the firm's brochure and firm resume, using low-cost mechanisms such as errata sheets or reprinting, so that prospective clients would not be misled about current firm personnel.
sourcetext: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.122940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Firm Y Brochure Continued Listing of Departed Engineer X
type: Post-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer Z continues distributing the brochure after Engineer X's notice, persisting indefinitely until corrected
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
affectedparties: Prospective clients relying on firm qualifications
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:40.905372+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
stateclass: Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
subject: Firm Y's promotional materials and firm resume listing Engineer X as a current employee after her departure notice
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case text; would terminate upon correction of the brochure and firm resume
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
triggeringevent: Engineer Z continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee and lists her on the firm resume after she has given notice of departure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.116744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer B BER 83-1 Key Employee Misrepresentation Violation
type: PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm brochure listing Engineer A as key employee post-termination
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER 83-1, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a 'key employee' after termination satisfied both elements of the dual test: the 'key employee' designation constituted a pertinent fact misrepresentation, and Engineer B's deliberate distribution after actual knowledge of termination demonstrated intent to enhance the firm's qualifications.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When a departing engineer is prominently designated as a key employee and the firm continues distribution with actual knowledge of departure, both elements of the dual test are satisfied and a violation is established.
invokedby: Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
sourcetext: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
tensionresolution: No balancing was available; the conduct unambiguously satisfied both elements of the violation standard.
textreferences: Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
textreferences: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
textreferences: the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.126622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer X Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation — Firm Y Brochure
type: DepartedEngineerFirmBrochureCredentialMisuseCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Engineer X Departure Notice
defeasible under: Engineer X At-Will Professional Mobility
casecontext: Engineer X gave two weeks notice and departed to another firm. Firm Y (through Engineer Z) continued to list Engineer X in its brochure and firm resume. Engineer X shares responsibility with Engineer Z for ensuring this misrepresentation is corrected.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation on Engineer X
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer X (departing associate, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer X, upon giving two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y, bore an affirmative obligation to take steps to ensure that Firm Y ceased representing her as a current employee in its brochure and firm resume, including notifying Engineer Z of the need to update materials and, if necessary, demanding correction.
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
temporalscope: From the moment of giving two-week notice through actual departure and beyond if misrepresentation persists
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.122657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Honesty Obligation Invoked Against Engineer Z Brochure Distribution
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X post-notice
balancingwith: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
balancingwith: Practical constraints of reprinting marketing materials
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X as a current employee after receiving two weeks notice implicates the fundamental honesty obligation — the brochure creates a false impression of current employment status.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty requires that representations about firm personnel reflect actual current employment relationships, not stale or soon-to-be-outdated ones.
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
tensionresolution: Because Engineer X's specialty is not a significant percentage of firm work and she is not highlighted as a key employee, the Board found the honesty violation threshold was not met — the listing was not pertinent enough to be decisively misleading.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.117544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Applied to Engineer X Listing
type: Non-ProminentPersonnelListingMaterialityExculpationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X after departure notice
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
balancingwith: Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Because Engineer X's hydrology expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of Firm Y's work and Engineer X is not highlighted as a key employee in the brochure, the continued listing does not meet the pertinent-fact threshold required for an ethical violation — the listing is insufficiently material to decisively affect prospective client selection decisions.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle calibrates ethical culpability to the degree of reliance the listing is likely to induce; incidental listing of a non-key engineer in a non-significant specialty area falls below the violation threshold.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
sourcetext: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work
tensionresolution: The materiality exculpation does not eliminate the recommendation to update materials; it merely determines that the failure to do so immediately does not constitute an ethics code violation in this specific factual configuration.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.121101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Proactive Accuracy Assurance for Firm Y Printed Marketing Materials
type: MarketingCommunicationCurrencyandAccuracyMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineering firm promotional brochures and resumes generally
balancingwith: Logistical realities of firm practice
balancingwith: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board articulated a forward-looking obligation for engineering firms using printed promotional materials to take reasonable proactive steps — including periodic review and timely correction via errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to ensure accuracy and prevent false impressions, particularly where personnel changes create risk of client misunderstanding.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to maintain accurate marketing materials is ongoing and proactive, not merely reactive; firms must implement reasonable accuracy assurance processes as a matter of professional ethics.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
sourcetext: engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
tensionresolution: The Board acknowledged logistical realities while affirming that they do not excuse failure to take reasonable corrective steps within a reasonable period.
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
textreferences: engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.127238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Application to Engineer X Brochure Listing
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Continued Brochure Distribution After Engineer X Notice — Non-Key-Employee Materiality Assessment
defeasible under: Firm Y Intent Assessment — Oversight vs. Enhancement
casecontext: Because Engineer X was not a key employee and hydrology was not a significant percentage of firm work, the Board's analysis suggests the first element (pertinence) may not be fully satisfied, potentially rendering continued distribution during the notice period conditionally permissible.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer Z Brochure Conduct
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z was obligated to evaluate whether the continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and firm resume satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) whether Engineer X's listing constituted a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection decisions, and (2) whether the listing was made with intent to enhance firm qualifications beyond what was accurate — and to refrain from distribution if both elements were satisfied.
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice and throughout the period of continued brochure distribution
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.122042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Firm Y Intent Assessment — Oversight vs. Enhancement
type: Intent-DifferentiatedMarketingMisrepresentationAssessmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer X's departure through Board's ethical assessment
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer Z
affectedparties: Firm Y
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:44.494926+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
stateclass: Intent-Differentiated Marketing Misrepresentation Assessment State
subject: Ethical evaluation of Firm Y and Engineer Z's conduct in retaining Engineer X's name in promotional materials, turning on whether intent to enhance qualifications was present
terminatedby: Board's ruling distinguishing the current case from BER 83-1 on intent grounds
textreferences: both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist
textreferences: the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent
textreferences: there does not appear to be the same motive on the part of the principal engineer or the firm to act in a manner which will materially benefit the firm as was so in BER Case 83-1
textreferences: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
triggeringevent: Discovery that Firm Y's brochures and resumes continued to list Engineer X after departure
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.119004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Honesty Obligation in Engineering Firm Promotional Activities
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineering firm promotional brochures and resumes listing personnel
balancingwith: Logistical realities of firm marketing practice
balancingwith: Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's entire analysis of both BER 83-1 and the present case is grounded in the honesty obligation applicable to engineering firms' promotional activities, requiring that brochures and resumes not create false impressions about the personnel available to serve prospective clients.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in the promotional context requires that marketing materials not mislead prospective clients about the composition and capabilities of the firm, whether through deliberate misrepresentation or inadvertent inaccuracy.
invokedby: Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: we must make clear that we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
tensionresolution: Honesty is the foundational obligation; logistical realities and inadvertent oversight may mitigate culpability but do not eliminate the underlying duty to be accurate.
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
textreferences: we must make clear that we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.127619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Notice-Period Conditional Permissibility Applied to Firm Y Brochure Distribution
type: Notice-PeriodBrochureDistributionConditionalPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure distributed during Engineer X's two-week notice period
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
balancingwith: Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm Y's continued distribution of existing brochures listing Engineer X during the two-week notice period is conditionally permissible because Engineer X is not a key employee in a significant practice area, and there is no evidence of intent to enhance firm qualifications through the listing.
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The two-week notice period is brief; the practical impossibility of immediate reprinting, combined with the non-pertinence of Engineer X's specialty, renders the continued distribution during this period conditionally permissible rather than violative.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
tensionresolution: Permissibility during the notice period is conditioned on non-prominence and non-pertinence; the firm remains obligated to update materials promptly after Engineer X's actual departure.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.121273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability for Engineer Z and Firm Y
type: Oversight-Without-MaliceReducedCulpabilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X post-departure
balancingwith: Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board found that Engineer Z and Firm Y's continued listing of Engineer X after departure reflected inadvertent oversight without malicious intent or deliberate purpose to enhance qualifications, and therefore did not rise to the level of an ethical violation, distinguishing the conduct from the deliberate misrepresentation in BER 83-1.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Inadvertent oversight without malice or enhancement intent places conduct below the ethical violation threshold, though it does not eliminate the duty to correct inaccuracies expeditiously.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability Principle
sourcetext: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
tensionresolution: The absence of malice and enhancement intent, combined with the non-pertinent-fact status of Engineer X's listing, collectively precluded a violation finding, while the Board still urged expeditious corrective action.
textreferences: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
textreferences: While this Board has found that unethical conduct in the past occurred in the absence of intentional actions, we do not consider the facts of this case to be of a nature to make such a finding.
textreferences: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.126930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Marketing Communication Currency Obligation Applied to Firm Y Post-Departure
type: MarketingCommunicationCurrencyandAccuracyMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and firm resume listing Engineer X
balancingwith: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
balancingwith: Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm Y bears an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate, current marketing materials; Engineer X's departure creates a concrete trigger event requiring the firm to update its brochure and resume to remove Engineer X's name once her employment ends.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation is ongoing and not discharged by accuracy at initial publication; Engineer X's departure notice is a material change requiring update. However, the non-prominence of Engineer X's role affects the urgency and the violation threshold.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
tensionresolution: While the currency obligation exists, the Board's finding of no violation reflects that the obligation's breach threshold is higher when the listed engineer is not a key employee in a significant practice area.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
textreferences: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.120806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Oversight-Without-Malice Non-Condoning Inadvertent Inaccuracy Correction for Firm Y
type: InadvertentBrochureInaccuracyNon-CondoningExpeditiousCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Post-Departure Marketing Materials
defeasible under: Firm Y Intent Assessment — Oversight vs. Enhancement
casecontext: The Board explicitly stated it was not condoning the failure to correct materials that might unintentionally mislead clients, even while declining to find a violation based on the absence of intent and the non-key status of Engineer X.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability for Engineer Z and Firm Y
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z and Firm Y
obligationclass: Inadvertent Brochure Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Although the Board found that Engineer Z and Firm Y's continued listing of Engineer X reflected inadvertent oversight without malicious intent — reducing culpability for the original inaccuracy — Engineer Z and Firm Y remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action, as the absence of malicious intent does not excuse continued distribution of materials that may mislead prospective clients.
sourcetext: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
temporalscope: From the point of actual knowledge of the inaccuracy (Engineer X's departure notice) onward
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
textreferences: we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.129103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing in Firm Y Brochure
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Grounding Firm Y Brochure Analysis
defeasible under: Engineer X Hydrology Expertise Scarcity in Firm Y
prevails over: Engineer Z Continued Brochure Distribution After Engineer X Notice — Non-Key-Employee Materiality Assessment
casecontext: Engineer X gave two weeks notice of departure from Firm Y; Engineer Z continued distributing brochures and resumes listing Engineer X; Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee and hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's work.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing
derived from principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer Z Brochure Conduct
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z and Firm Y
obligationclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to ensure that continued listing of Engineer X in promotional materials satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test before distribution; the Board found that neither element was clearly satisfied — Engineer X was not a key employee and there was no demonstrable intent to enhance qualifications — resulting in a finding of no violation.
sourcetext: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer X gave notice through the period of continued brochure distribution
textreferences: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
textreferences: it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: we are reluctant to conclude that the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrate an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.127956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Comparative Case Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BER 83-1 precedent vs. present case facts
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 83-1, identifying the material factual distinction — Engineer A was highlighted as a 'key employee' while Engineer X was not — and explaining how that distinction altered the ethical obligations applicable to Engineer Z and Firm Y relative to those applicable to Engineer B.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Precedent cases imposing strong ethical obligations do not automatically apply when key distinguishing facts — particularly the prominence and materiality of the listed engineer — are absent.
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
sourcetext: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
tensionresolution: The Board affirmed the BER 83-1 ruling as correct on its facts while declining to extend it to the present case due to the absence of the 'key employee' designation and the lack of demonstrated enhancement intent.
textreferences: However, under the facts of the instant case, there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
textreferences: In the BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.'
textreferences: Reviewing the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that the facts while similar, are different in one important area.
textreferences: We criticized Engineer B's action and we affirm that criticism.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.126464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Continued Brochure Distribution After Engineer X Notice — Non-Key-Employee Materiality Assessment
type: Non-Key-EmployeeDepartedEngineerBrochureListingContextualPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Application to Engineer X Brochure Listing
defeasible under: Firm Y Brochure Continued Listing of Departed Engineer X
casecontext: Engineer X gave two weeks notice of voluntary departure; Engineer Z continued distributing brochures and firm resume listing Engineer X as an employee. Engineer X was not a key employee and hydrology was not a significant percentage of firm work.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Applied to Engineer X Listing
derived from principle: Omission Materiality Threshold Applied to Firm Y Non-Disclosure of Engineer X Departure
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Non-Key-Employee Departed Engineer Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z was obligated to conduct a case-by-case materiality assessment of whether continued distribution of Firm Y's brochure listing Engineer X — a non-key associate whose hydrology expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of firm work — constituted a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, rather than applying a categorical prohibition.
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer X gave two weeks notice through and after actual departure
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.121904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy Maintenance — Engineer X Personnel Currency
type: MarketingMaterialOngoingAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment
defeasible under: Firm Y Intent Assessment — Oversight vs. Enhancement
casecontext: Firm Y's brochure and firm resume listed Engineer X as a current employee. Engineer X's voluntary departure notice created a known future inaccuracy that Engineer Z was obligated to address through timely material updates.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Marketing Communication Currency Obligation Applied to Firm Y Post-Departure
derived from principle: Professional Accountability of Engineer Z for Firm Marketing Accuracy
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z, as principal of Firm Y, bore an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate and current marketing materials, including the firm brochure and firm resume; Engineer X's two-week notice constituted a concrete trigger event requiring Engineer Z to plan and execute updates to those materials to reflect Engineer X's pending and then actual departure.
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
temporalscope: Continuous obligation; specifically triggered upon receipt of Engineer X's departure notice
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.122515
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Errata Sheet Utilization Obligation for Firm Y Printed Brochures
type: ErrataSheetLow-CostCorrectionMechanismUtilizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment
defeasible under: Firm Y Brochure Continued Listing of Departed Engineer X
casecontext: The Board acknowledged the logistical realities of firm marketing practice but emphasized that low-cost correction mechanisms eliminate the logistical excuse for inaction.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Marketing Materials
derived from principle: Transparency Obligation in Engineering Firm Marketing Communications
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer Z and Firm Y
obligationclass: Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Utilization Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — rather than treating logistical difficulty or printing costs as justification for continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X after departure.
sourcetext: In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
temporalscope: Within a reasonable period of time after Engineer X's departure
textreferences: In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
textreferences: While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.128828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Post-Departure Marketing Materials
type: ExpeditiousMarketingMaterialErrorCorrectionUponActualKnowledgeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Oversight-Without-Malice Non-Condoning Inadvertent Inaccuracy Correction for Firm Y
defeasible under: Engineer X Departure from Firm Y — Brochure Not Updated
casecontext: The Board found no violation but emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z were not condoned in allowing inaccurate materials to persist; the non-key status of Engineer X reduced urgency but did not eliminate the correction obligation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered Upon Engineer X Departure
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Marketing Materials
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z and Firm Y
obligationclass: Expeditious Marketing Material Error Correction Upon Actual Knowledge Obligation
obligationstatement: Despite not finding a violation, Engineer Z and Firm Y remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct any false impressions created by continued listing of Engineer X in promotional materials after Engineer X's actual departure.
sourcetext: we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer X's actual departure from Firm Y
textreferences: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies
textreferences: we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
textreferences: we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.128689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing
type: PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X after departure
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied the two-element test to Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and resume after departure, finding that neither element was satisfied: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee (no pertinent fact misrepresentation), and the conduct appeared to be oversight without intent to enhance qualifications.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Both elements — pertinent fact misrepresentation AND intent to enhance — must be present simultaneously for a violation; the absence of either negates the ethical violation.
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
sourcetext: We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
tensionresolution: Because Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee and the firm's conduct appeared to be oversight rather than deliberate enhancement, the Board declined to find a violation despite the factual inaccuracy.
textreferences: We determined whether (1) 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.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
textreferences: the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
textreferences: there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.120324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer Z Brochure Conduct
type: PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure listing Engineer X after departure notice
balancingwith: Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
balancingwith: Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied the dual-element test — requiring both (1) that the listed information constitute a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection, and (2) that the firm acted with intent to enhance its qualifications — to evaluate whether Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X violated ethics standards.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Because hydrology is not a significant percentage of Firm Y's work and Engineer X is not highlighted as a key employee, the first element (pertinent fact) is not clearly satisfied, and the violation threshold is not met.
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
sourcetext: the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work
tensionresolution: The dual-element test exculpates Engineer Z from a formal violation while still recommending corrective action as best practice.
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.120479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered Upon Engineer X Departure
type: ExpeditiousCorrectionObligationUponActualKnowledgeofMarketingMaterialInaccuracy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X after departure notice and after departure
balancingwith: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
balancingwith: Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Z has actual knowledge of Engineer X's departure from the moment notice is given; this triggers an obligation to take expeditious corrective action on the brochure and firm resume, even if the failure to do so during the notice period does not independently constitute a violation given Engineer X's non-prominent status.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Actual knowledge of the inaccuracy (departure notice) triggers the correction obligation; continued inaction after Engineer X's actual departure is a more serious concern than inaction during the notice period.
invokedby: Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
principleclass: Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
sourcetext: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
tensionresolution: The Board's no-violation finding for the notice period does not eliminate the expeditious correction obligation post-departure; the principle recommends correction as best practice even absent a formal violation.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.120953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Marketing Materials
type: ExpeditiousCorrectionObligationUponActualKnowledgeofMarketingMaterialInaccuracy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Y brochure and resume containing Engineer X's name post-departure
balancingwith: Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Despite not finding a violation, the Board emphasized that Firm Y and Engineer Z remained obligated to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — to correct the false impression created by Engineer X's continued listing, and that failure to do so would risk breaching ethical behavior.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even where original inclusion was inadvertent and non-violative, once the firm is aware of the potential for misunderstanding, an affirmative obligation to correct arises and continued inaction risks ethical breach.
invokedby: Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
principleclass: Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
sourcetext: we must make clear that we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
tensionresolution: The reduced culpability for the original oversight does not eliminate the forward-looking corrective obligation; the two principles operate on different temporal axes.
textreferences: Firms that fail to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior.
textreferences: errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
textreferences: we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
textreferences: we must make clear that we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.127085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Key Employee Brochure Listing Violation by Engineer B in BER 83-1
type: KeyEmployeeBrochureListingProspectiveClientRelianceNon-MisleadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
defeasible under: Engineer X Departure from Firm Y — Brochure Not Updated
casecontext: Engineer B terminated Engineer A but continued distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period (without disclosure to prospective clients) and after actual termination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Engineer B BER 83-1 Key Employee Misrepresentation Violation
derived from principle: Honesty Obligation in Engineering Firm Promotional Activities
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (BER 83-1)
obligationclass: Key Employee Brochure Listing Prospective Client Reliance Non-Misleading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from distributing brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination, as this constituted a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance firm qualifications, violating NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
sourcetext: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
temporalscope: During the notice period (without client disclosure) and after actual termination
textreferences: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
textreferences: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
textreferences: The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.128097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
type: Non-Key-EmployeeDepartedEngineerBrochureListingContextualPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Engineer X Departure Notice
competes with: Key Employee Brochure Listing Violation by Engineer B in BER 83-1
prevails over: Key Employee Brochure Listing Violation by Engineer B in BER 83-1
casecontext: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee in Firm Y's brochure; hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services; Engineer X was not the only engineer with hydrology expertise at the firm.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Applied to Engineer X Listing
derived from principle: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation for Engineer X
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z and Firm Y
obligationclass: Non-Key-Employee Departed Engineer Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to assess whether continued listing of Engineer X — a non-key employee whose area of expertise did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts; the Board found that the non-key status and non-significant practice area meant continued listing did not constitute an overt misrepresentation.
sourcetext: there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
temporalscope: During the two-week notice period and period of continued brochure distribution after departure
textreferences: Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.
textreferences: there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
textreferences: this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.128406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Engineer X Departure Notice
type: ExpeditiousMarketingMaterialErrorCorrectionUponActualKnowledgeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer X Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation — Firm Y Brochure
competes with: Engineer Z Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment
competes with: Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
defeasible under: Engineer X Notice of Departure
casecontext: Engineer Z continued to distribute brochures and firm resume listing Engineer X as an employee after receiving notice of departure, without taking corrective action. The non-key-employee status of Engineer X may reduce the urgency but does not eliminate the obligation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered Upon Engineer X Departure
derived from principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Marketing Materials
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Expeditious Marketing Material Error Correction Upon Actual Knowledge Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z, upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice of departure, acquired actual knowledge that Firm Y's brochure and firm resume would become inaccurate upon Engineer X's departure, triggering an obligation to take expeditious corrective action — including reprinting materials, issuing errata sheets, or withdrawing existing brochures — within a reasonable time after Engineer X's actual departure.
sourcetext: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
temporalscope: From receipt of two-week notice through and after Engineer X's actual departure date
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.122371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Grounding Firm Y Brochure Analysis
type: TruthfulandNon-DeceptiveAdvertisingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment
competes with: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing in Firm Y Brochure
defeasible under: Firm Y Intent Assessment — Oversight vs. Enhancement
casecontext: The Board's entire analysis of the present case and BER 83-1 was grounded in the honesty and non-deception obligation applicable to engineering firms' promotional activities, with the explosion of marketing activity in the profession making this obligation increasingly important.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty Obligation Invoked Against Engineer Z Brochure Distribution
derived from principle: Honesty Obligation in Engineering Firm Promotional Activities
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z and Firm Y
obligationclass: Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to ensure that all promotional materials — including brochures and resumes listing personnel — were truthful, not misleading, and not deceptive, consistent with NSPE Code Section II.5.a, which the Board applied as the foundational standard for evaluating the ethics of continued listing of Engineer X.
sourcetext: With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable to all promotional material distributions
textreferences: The Board noted that it is not unusual for an engineering firm that seeks to promote itself for business reasons to include in such a brochure a statement of the firm's experience, its history, its qualifications as well as the names and qualifications of the members of the firm.
textreferences: With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
textreferences: we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients, potential clients and others
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.129387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
type: Oversight-NegligentFirmMarketingPrincipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Brochure Personnel Currency Obligation Triggered by Engineer X Departure Notice
adheres to principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Marketing Materials
adheres to principle: Marketing Communication Currency Obligation Applied to Firm Y Post-Departure
adheres to principle: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Applied to Engineer X Listing
adheres to principle: Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation for Engineer X
adheres to principle: Notice-Period Conditional Permissibility Applied to Firm Y Brochure Distribution
adheres to principle: Omission Materiality Threshold Applied to Firm Y Non-Disclosure of Engineer X Departure
adheres to principle: Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability for Engineer Z and Firm Y
adheres to principle: Proactive Accuracy Assurance for Firm Y Printed Marketing Materials
adheres to principle: Transparency Obligation in Engineering Firm Marketing Communications
has obligation: Errata Sheet Utilization Obligation for Firm Y Printed Brochures
has obligation: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Post-Departure Marketing Materials
has obligation: Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
has obligation: Oversight-Without-Malice Non-Condoning Inadvertent Inaccuracy Correction for Firm Y
has obligation: Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance for Firm Y
has obligation: Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Grounding Firm Y Brochure Analysis
attributes: {'intent_finding': 'No intent to enhance qualifications found — oversight', 'violation_found': 'No — but cautioned to correct materials', 'case_reference': 'Instant case'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Z is the principal engineer of Firm Y who allowed Engineer X's name to remain in the firm's brochure and resume after Engineer X's departure. The Board found this to be an oversight without malice or intent rather than a deliberate misrepresentation, but cautioned that firms must take reasonable steps to correct such inaccuracies.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:50.768147+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'firm_principal_of', 'target': 'Firm Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer X Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Prospective Clients of Firm Y'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
sourcetext: the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume
textreferences: the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent
textreferences: the actions of Firm Y and Engineer Z in including the name of Engineer X in the firm's brochure and resume
textreferences: we are not condoning the failure of an engineering firm to correct material (brochures, resumes, etc.) which might have the unintentional effect of misleading clients
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.119816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment
type: VoluntaryResignationNotice-PeriodNon-Key-EmployeeBrochureListingConditionalPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Z Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Engineer X Departure Notice
competes with: Engineer Z Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy Maintenance — Engineer X Personnel Currency
competes with: Errata Sheet Utilization Obligation for Firm Y Printed Brochures
competes with: Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Grounding Firm Y Brochure Analysis
defeasible under: Engineer X Notice of Departure
prevails over: Engineer Z Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy Maintenance — Engineer X Personnel Currency
casecontext: Engineer X voluntarily resigned with two weeks notice. Engineer Z continued distributing brochures and firm resume. The non-key-employee status and non-significant hydrology percentage are the critical facts that distinguish this case from BER 83-1 (where Engineer A was a key employee) and condition the permissibility analysis.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Engineer B BER 83-1 Notice Period Conditional Permissibility
derived from principle: Notice-Period Conditional Permissibility Applied to Firm Y Brochure Distribution
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
obligationclass: Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Conditional Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Z was obligated to recognize that continued distribution of Firm Y's existing printed brochures listing Engineer X during the two-week notice period was conditionally permissible — given Engineer X's non-key-employee status and the non-significant percentage of hydrology work — provided Engineer Z did not affirmatively represent Engineer X as available for future work and took expeditious corrective steps upon actual departure.
sourcetext: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
temporalscope: During the two-week notice period; obligation to correct arises upon actual departure
textreferences: Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
textreferences: Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.122800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction

Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
type: Credential-MisrepresentingFirmPrincipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Comparative Case Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case
adheres to principle: Expeditious Correction Obligation Triggered Upon Engineer X Departure
adheres to principle: Honesty Obligation Invoked Against Engineer Z Brochure Distribution
adheres to principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing
adheres to principle: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer Z Brochure Conduct
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability of Engineer Z for Firm Marketing Accuracy
has obligation: Case-by-Case Pertinence Assessment Distinguishing BER 83-1 from Present Case
has obligation: Engineer Z Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment — Engineer X Departure
has obligation: Engineer Z Continued Brochure Distribution After Engineer X Notice — Non-Key-Employee Materiality Assessment
has obligation: Engineer Z Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Engineer X Departure Notice
has obligation: Engineer Z Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy Maintenance — Engineer X Personnel Currency
has obligation: Engineer Z Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Application to Engineer X Brochure Listing
has obligation: Engineer Z Post-Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Expeditious Correction — Engineer X
has obligation: Engineer Z Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment
has obligation: Errata Sheet Utilization Obligation for Firm Y Printed Brochures
has obligation: Expeditious Correction Obligation for Firm Y Post-Departure Marketing Materials
has obligation: Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
has obligation: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing in Firm Y Brochure
has obligation: Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Grounding Firm Y Brochure Analysis
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'seniority': 'Principal / Firm Controller', 'misconduct': 'Continued distribution of marketing materials listing departed engineer as current staff'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Z is the principal who controls Firm Y. After Engineer X gives two weeks notice, Engineer Z continues to distribute brochures and firm resumes that list Engineer X as a current employee, misrepresenting the firm's personnel and hydrology expertise to prospective clients.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 174
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:36.259367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 174
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:36.259367+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'controls', 'target': 'Firm Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer X Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'misrepresents_to', 'target': 'Prospective Client Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
sourcetext: Firm Y, a medium-sized engineering consulting firm controlled by Engineer Z
textreferences: Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
textreferences: Firm Y, a medium-sized engineering consulting firm controlled by Engineer Z
wasattributedto: Case 174 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:34:10.115619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 174 Extraction