NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 92-2 – Engineer Intern Listed as PE in Advertising
In BER Case 92-2, an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE.
'[w]hile there is no indication that what has occurred under these facts is anything other than a negligent oversight, continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.'
BER in analogical reasoning about title misrepresentation
Cited as precedent establishing that misrepresentation of licensure status in firm documents is unethical, and that continued inaction after knowledge of error raises questions of improper and unethical conduct
BER Case 92-2 EI Engineer Intern Misrepresentation Correction Obligation Instance
An engineer intern observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE. He appropriately reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, fulfilling the initial reporting duty under the ethics code.
Engineer Intern Misrepresentation Correction Obligation
The engineer intern in BER Case 92-2 was obligated to promptly report the firm's misrepresentation of his licensure status — listing him as a licensed PE when he held only EI status — to the responsible party within the firm, which he fulfilled by reporting to the marketing director.
In BER Case 92-2, an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE. The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department.
Upon discovery that firm advertising documents listed the EI as a licensed PE
The BER noted that the EI took the appropriate step by alerting the marketing director of the error.
BER Case 92-2 EI Engineer Intern Misrepresentation Escalation Persistence
Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
The engineer intern in BER Case 92-2 possessed the capability to recognize that initial reporting of the PE misrepresentation to the marketing department had not resulted in correction after six months, and was obligated to escalate to higher organizational authority or external professional bodies to fulfill professional obligations
An EI discovered that firm advertising listed him as a licensed PE, reported to the marketing department, but received no corrective action after six months
Initial reporting to marketing department was appropriate; continued inaction after six months triggered escalation obligation
The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months, the documents had not been corrected.
The BER noted that the EI took the appropriate step by alerting the marketing director of the error and concluded that '[w]hile there is no indication that what has occurred under these facts is anything other than a negligent oversight, continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.'
BER Case 92-2 EI Timely Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Obligation Instance
An engineer intern discovered that firm advertising documents listed him as a licensed PE. He reported the misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months the documents had not been corrected. The BER noted that continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.
Timely Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Obligation
The engineer intern in BER Case 92-2, having reported the PE misrepresentation to the marketing department and received no corrective action after six months, was obligated to escalate the matter beyond the initial report to ensure correction, so that continued inaction did not become complicit acquiescence in ongoing unethical conduct.
After six months of non-correction following the initial report to the marketing department
BER Case 92-2 Engineer Intern Misrepresented as PE
{'license': 'Engineer Intern (EI), not licensed PE', 'misrepresentation': 'Listed as PE in firm advertising documents', 'action_taken': 'Reported to marketing director'}
An engineer intern (EI) who discovered that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a licensed PE, reported the misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months the documents remained uncorrected despite the firm's actual knowledge of the error.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Engineering Firm (BER Case 92-2)'}
{'type': 'reported_misrepresentation_to', 'target': 'Marketing Department'}
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-10 – ENGCO Key Personnel Titled 'Engineer' Without Degrees
BER Case 95-10 considered an engineering firm, ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer.'
'Although the industry and governmental agencies sometimes use the term indiscriminently [sic], we in the profession must not.'
BER in analogical reasoning about improper use of engineer title
Cited as precedent establishing that engineering firms must not use 'Engineer' titles for non-degreed, unlicensed personnel, and that the profession must hold itself to higher standards than industry or government practice
B directs Engineer A to revise signed and sealed contract documents before Engineer A's obligation to report B's violation to appropriate professional bodies
B reviews documents, makes comments, and directs changes before Engineer A discovers B is neither licensed nor degreed
CausalLink_Comply With Unqualified Review
CausalLink_Delay Escalation of Known Viol
CausalLink_List Unqualified Staff as Engi
CausalLink_Report Unlawful Engineering Pr
CausalLink_Submit Sealed Design Documents
Comply With Unqualified Reviewer Directions
Comply With Unqualified Reviewer Directions (Action 2) → Prior Compliance Retroactively Problematized (Event 6)
It is unlawful and therefore not ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure: adequate education, rigorous examination, and substantial experience.
Beyond the Board's finding that it is unlawful and unethical for Transportation Engineer B to practice engineering without licensure, the analysis must also address the State Agency's independent institutional culpability. By deliberately assigning the title 'Transportation Engineer' to management personnel who are neither licensed nor degreed engineers, the State Agency created the structural conditions that enabled and concealed the unlicensed practice. This systemic title misassignment is not merely an administrative irregularity — it constitutes an ongoing misrepresentation that undermines the public's ability to rely on the integrity of engineering credentials in government contexts. The agency's practice erodes profession-wide title integrity and may itself violate state licensing act provisions governing the use of engineering-implying titles. Engineer A's ethical concern about the agency's broader title assignment practice is therefore well-founded and independently significant, not merely derivative of Transportation Engineer B's individual violation.
The Board's conclusion that unlicensed practice is per se unethical does not resolve whether demonstrated technical competence by Transportation Engineer B could mitigate the ethical severity of the violation. From a consequentialist perspective, one might argue that if Transportation Engineer B's reviews were technically sound and protective of public safety, the harm to the public was limited. However, this reasoning must be rejected on both deontological and systemic grounds. The licensure requirement exists precisely because competence cannot be reliably assessed without the gatekeeping functions of education verification, rigorous examination, and supervised experience. Allowing post-hoc competence assessments to mitigate unlicensed practice violations would hollow out the licensure system entirely, since every unlicensed practitioner could claim retrospective competence. The ethical violation is therefore not contingent on whether harm actually occurred, but on the structural risk created by bypassing the systems designed to ensure competence before practice begins. The public's right to protection depends on the integrity of the licensure threshold, not on case-by-case outcome assessments.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A has an obligation to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice must be extended to address the threshold of knowledge required to trigger that obligation and the permissible scope of graduated escalation before formal reporting. Engineer A's obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.f is activated upon having 'knowledge' of an alleged violation — meaning that reasonable certainty based on direct discovery of Transportation Engineer B's non-licensed, non-degreed status is sufficient to trigger the duty. Mere suspicion would not suffice, but Engineer A need not conduct an independent forensic investigation once the facts are directly established. Critically, while a brief and good-faith attempt at informal resolution with the State Agency — such as raising the concern with a supervising manager — may represent a professionally reasonable first step, any such graduated escalation must be genuinely time-limited. Delay that functions to protect Engineer A's contractual relationship with the State Agency rather than to achieve legitimate resolution would itself constitute aiding or abetting the unlicensed practice under Section II.1.e, as illustrated by the precedent in BER Case 92-2 regarding the obligation to correct credential misrepresentations in a timely manner. Engineer A's reporting obligation is therefore not discharged by informal escalation alone and does not permit indefinite deferral on institutional or contractual grounds.
The Board's finding that Engineer A has a reporting obligation must be further extended to address Engineer A's independent duty to cease compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions to revise sealed contract documents. The act of submitting sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B for review and then implementing Transportation Engineer B's directed revisions constitutes active participation in the unlicensed practice of engineering, not merely passive awareness of it. Under NSPE Code Section II.1.e, Engineer A is prohibited from aiding or abetting unlicensed practice — and continued compliance with revision directions from an individual whose unlicensed status is now known to Engineer A would cross that threshold. This refusal obligation is not contingent on whether it creates contractual friction with the State Agency. The principle of Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority reinforces this conclusion: a licensed engineer's sealed documents represent a professional certification of responsibility that cannot be subordinated to the direction of an unqualified reviewer without compromising the integrity of the seal itself. Engineer A's duty to refuse further compliance is therefore coextensive with, and arguably more immediate than, the duty to report — since reporting addresses the systemic violation while refusal directly halts Engineer A's own participation in it.
The Board's conclusions do not address the retroactive ethical status of Engineer A's prior compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions before the unlicensed status was discovered. This prior compliance does not constitute retroactive ethical liability for Engineer A, because ethical culpability under the NSPE Code requires knowledge of the violation — Engineer A cannot be held to have aided unlicensed practice while reasonably relying on the State Agency's official title assignment as an indicator of qualification. However, this conclusion carries an important corollary: it implies that Engineer A bore a latent duty of professional vigilance to verify the licensure status of individuals exercising engineering review authority over sealed documents. The fact that a state agency assigned an engineering-implying title does not fully discharge that duty, particularly given that the NSPE Code's provisions on qualification transparency and non-falsification of credentials place affirmative obligations on engineers to be alert to credential misrepresentation in professional contexts. Going forward, the case establishes a practical standard that licensed engineers submitting sealed documents for agency review should proactively confirm the licensure status of designated reviewers, especially when those reviewers are directing substantive revisions to sealed engineering documents.
In response to Q101: Engineer A's prior compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions — before discovering the unlicensed status — does not constitute retroactive ethical liability under the NSPE Code, provided that compliance was made in good faith without knowledge of the unlicensed status. The NSPE Code's prohibition against aiding or abetting unlicensed practice under Section II.1.e is predicated on knowledge; an engineer cannot be held to have aided unlawful practice when the unlawful character of the reviewer's authority was not reasonably discoverable through ordinary professional conduct. However, this good-faith defense is not unlimited. If Engineer A had access to publicly available licensure records and failed to consult them before submitting sealed documents to a state agency reviewer exercising engineering judgment, a reasonable argument exists that Engineer A fell short of the professional vigilance expected of a licensed engineer. The prior compliance does not create retroactive liability, but it does underscore the importance of proactive verification — a lesson that informs Engineer A's obligations going forward once knowledge is acquired.
In response to Q102: The State Agency bears independent ethical responsibility for the systemic harm caused by assigning engineering-implying titles to unlicensed, non-degreed management personnel. While the NSPE Code's obligations are directed at licensed engineers rather than government agencies as institutional actors, Engineer A's obligations under Section II.1.f and the broader principle of Licensure Integrity extend beyond reporting Transportation Engineer B as an individual. Engineer A is ethically positioned — and arguably obligated — to report the systemic title misassignment practice to the appropriate state licensing board, not merely the individual instance of unlicensed practice. The State Agency's deliberate use of the 'Transportation Engineer' title for personnel who exercise engineering review authority constitutes an institutional pattern of misrepresentation that erodes profession-wide title integrity and undermines the public's ability to rely on engineering credentials as meaningful quality assurances. Reporting only Transportation Engineer B without flagging the agency's broader practice would address the symptom while leaving the systemic cause unaddressed, which is inconsistent with Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
In response to Q103: Engineer A's ethical obligations upon discovering Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed status include not only reporting the violation but also refusing to continue submitting sealed documents for Transportation Engineer B's review and approval. Section II.1.e's prohibition on aiding or abetting unlicensed practice is not satisfied by reporting alone if Engineer A simultaneously continues to participate in the unlicensed review process. Each subsequent submission of sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B for engineering review, made with knowledge of the unlicensed status, would constitute active facilitation of unlicensed practice. This refusal obligation persists even if it jeopardizes Engineer A's contract with the State Agency, because the NSPE Code's duty not to aid unlawful practice is not conditioned on the absence of professional or contractual consequences. The principle of Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority reinforces this conclusion: Engineer A's sealed documents carry professional and legal weight that cannot be subordinated to the review authority of an individual who lacks the qualifications the law requires for that authority.
In response to Q104: The threshold of knowledge required to trigger Engineer A's reporting obligation under Section II.1.f is actual knowledge, not mere suspicion. However, once Engineer A has acquired credible, specific information — such as direct confirmation that Transportation Engineer B holds neither a PE license nor an engineering degree — the obligation to report is activated without requiring Engineer A to conduct an independent formal investigation. Engineer A is not required to become an investigator, but is required to act on knowledge already in hand. The due diligence steps ethically required before reporting are proportionate to the seriousness of the allegation and the reliability of the information: Engineer A should confirm the licensure status through publicly available state licensing board records, which are typically accessible online, before filing a formal report. This verification step protects Transportation Engineer B from a potentially erroneous report while ensuring Engineer A's report is grounded in fact rather than rumor. Suspicion alone does not trigger the reporting obligation, but it does trigger a due diligence obligation to verify — and once verification confirms the unlicensed status, reporting becomes mandatory rather than discretionary.
In response to Q201: The tension between the principle of Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority and Engineer A's practical dependence on State Agency approval to complete contracted work is real but not ethically irresolvable. The NSPE Code does not permit contractual or institutional pressures to override the integrity of sealed documents or the prohibition on aiding unlicensed practice. Engineer A must resolve this tension in favor of sealed document integrity, because the alternative — continuing to submit sealed documents for review by an unqualified individual in order to preserve a contract — would transform Engineer A's professional seal from a meaningful public safety guarantee into a formality subordinated to institutional convenience. The practical consequence of this resolution may be that Engineer A must escalate the matter to higher agency authority, seek a contractual modification that routes reviews through a licensed engineer, or in the extreme case, withdraw from the engagement. None of these consequences override the ethical obligation; they are the costs of professional integrity that the NSPE Code implicitly accepts when it places public welfare paramount.
In response to Q202: Demonstrated technical competence does not and cannot mitigate the ethical violation of practicing engineering without a license. The licensure system is not merely a competence-screening mechanism; it is a public accountability structure that ensures engineers are identifiable, insurable, legally responsible, and subject to professional discipline. An unlicensed individual who happens to produce technically sound reviews still operates outside this accountability structure, meaning that even if Transportation Engineer B's reviews were technically correct, the public has no enforceable recourse against Transportation Engineer B through the professional licensing system if errors occur. Furthermore, allowing demonstrated competence to serve as a mitigating factor would undermine the entire rationale for mandatory licensure by creating a post-hoc competence defense that any unlicensed practitioner could invoke. The Public Welfare Paramount principle is best served by the licensure system as a whole, not by case-by-case assessments of whether a particular unlicensed individual happened to perform adequately.
In response to Q203 and Q204: The conflict between Professional Title Integrity and Qualification Transparency on one hand, and Engineer A's institutional relationship with the State Agency on the other, places Engineer A in a structurally difficult position but does not create genuine ethical ambiguity about the correct course of action. By continuing to submit documents to the State Agency without challenging the title misrepresentation, Engineer A does risk implicitly legitimizing the agency's misleading use of the 'Transportation Engineer' title, which contributes to profession-wide title integrity erosion as identified under Section II.5.a's prohibition on permitting misrepresentation of associates' qualifications. However, the resolution is not to remain silent indefinitely but to challenge the title practice through appropriate channels — including direct communication with agency management, escalation to the state licensing board, and if necessary, public professional advocacy — while simultaneously fulfilling the reporting obligation regarding Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice. The Honesty in Professional Representations principle does not require Engineer A to unilaterally refuse all engagement with the agency, but it does require Engineer A not to remain passively complicit in a title misrepresentation that Engineer A now knows to be misleading.
In response to Q301 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's categorical duty under the NSPE Code is triggered at the moment of discovery of Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed status, and that duty is not subject to consequentialist weighing against professional or contractual consequences. The duty not to aid or abet unlicensed practice under Section II.1.e functions as a near-absolute constraint: it does not permit Engineer A to continue submitting sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B for engineering review simply because doing so is contractually convenient or institutionally expected. The deontological force of this obligation derives from the fact that the licensure system exists to protect the public as a matter of right, not merely as a matter of outcome — meaning that even if continued compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions produced no identifiable harm, it would still violate Engineer A's duty by treating the public's right to licensed engineering oversight as negotiable. Engineer A's duty to refuse further compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions is therefore absolute in the deontological sense, arising immediately upon discovery and persisting regardless of institutional hierarchy or contractual exposure.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist standpoint, the systemic harm caused by state agencies assigning engineering-implying titles to unlicensed, non-degreed personnel substantially outweighs any administrative convenience those agencies gain from the practice. The harms are multiple and compounding: public safety is endangered when unqualified individuals exercise final engineering review authority over infrastructure design documents; profession-wide title integrity is eroded when the 'engineer' designation loses its credential-signaling function; licensed engineers are placed in ethically untenable positions when institutional hierarchy directs them to defer to unqualified reviewers; and the public's trust in the engineering licensure system as a quality assurance mechanism is undermined. The administrative efficiency argument — that assigning engineering titles to management staff simplifies organizational charts or salary classifications — is trivially small by comparison. A consequentialist analysis therefore strongly supports both Engineer A's individual reporting obligation and a broader policy conclusion that state agencies should be subject to the same professional title integrity standards that apply to private engineering firms under state licensing acts.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's prior compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions before learning of the unlicensed status does not necessarily reflect a deficit in professional vigilance, provided that the circumstances did not present obvious warning signs that a reasonably vigilant engineer would have investigated. The virtue of professional vigilance requires engineers to be alert to circumstances that should prompt inquiry — such as a reviewer who cannot articulate the engineering basis for requested changes, or a title that seems inconsistent with the reviewer's apparent background — but it does not require engineers to treat every agency reviewer as a suspect requiring credential verification before engagement. However, once Engineer A discovered the unlicensed status, the virtue ethics framework demands that Engineer A demonstrate professional courage: the willingness to challenge institutional authority, report the violation, and refuse further complicity even at personal professional cost. A virtuous engineer does not allow institutional hierarchy or contractual dependency to suppress the professional courage that the situation demands. The test of Engineer A's virtue ethics compliance is therefore not in the prior compliance but in the response upon discovery.
In response to Q401: If Engineer A had proactively verified Transportation Engineer B's licensure status before submitting the first set of sealed design documents, the ethical obligations would have been triggered at the outset of the professional relationship rather than mid-engagement. This earlier discovery would have prevented the retroactive problematization of prior compliance entirely, since Engineer A would never have submitted sealed documents to an unlicensed reviewer in the first place. More importantly, proactive verification would have allowed Engineer A to raise the issue with the State Agency before any contractual or institutional dependencies had developed, making the challenge less professionally costly and more likely to result in systemic correction. This counterfactual supports the conclusion that proactive licensure verification of engineering reviewers — particularly those exercising final approval authority over sealed documents — is a best practice consistent with Engineer A's professional vigilance obligations, even if it is not explicitly mandated by the NSPE Code as a precondition to document submission.
In response to Q402: If Engineer A had refused to submit sealed design documents to the State Agency entirely upon discovering Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed status, that refusal would constitute a more ethically complete response than reporting alone, because it would eliminate Engineer A's ongoing participation in the unlicensed review process rather than merely flagging it to authorities while continuing to participate. However, the NSPE Code does not require total withdrawal from the engagement as the only acceptable response; it requires that Engineer A not aid or abet the unlicensed practice and that Engineer A report the violation. A graduated response — refusing to submit further documents to Transportation Engineer B specifically while seeking to have the State Agency designate a licensed engineer as the reviewer, and simultaneously reporting the violation — would satisfy the Code's requirements without necessarily requiring full contract withdrawal. The question of breach-of-contract liability that might arise from refusal is a legal matter the NSPE Code does not resolve, but the Code's ethical framework is clear that contractual exposure does not override the obligation to refuse participation in unlicensed practice.
In response to Q403: If the State Agency had assigned Transportation Engineer B a non-engineering title such as 'Plan Review Manager,' the same review and approval activities — personally reviewing sealed design documents, making comments, and directing changes that constitute the practice of engineering under state law — would still have constituted unlicensed practice of engineering. The legal definition of engineering practice under state licensing acts is activity-based, not title-based; it is the nature of the work performed, not the label attached to the performer, that determines whether a license is required. Engineer A's reporting obligation would therefore have been equally activated regardless of the title, because the trigger is the unlicensed performance of engineering activities, not the misleading use of an engineering title. The 'Transportation Engineer' title compounds the violation by adding a misrepresentation dimension, but the core unlicensed practice violation exists independently of the title. This analysis confirms that Engineer A's concern about the title is a secondary issue layered on top of the primary unlicensed practice violation.
In response to Q404: A delay in reporting Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice — for example, by first attempting informal resolution with the State Agency manager — does not automatically constitute aiding or abetting unlicensed practice under Section II.1.e, provided the delay is brief, purposeful, and does not involve continued submission of sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B during the delay period. The precedent from BER Case 92-2 regarding timely correction of credential misrepresentation supports the conclusion that graduated escalation is permissible when the initial steps are taken promptly and in good faith, but that escalation must not become indefinite deferral. A reasonable window for informal resolution — perhaps a matter of days to weeks, not months — is consistent with the Code's framework, particularly if Engineer A simultaneously suspends submission of sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B. However, if informal resolution fails or the State Agency is unresponsive, Engineer A's obligation to report to the appropriate licensing board becomes immediate and non-negotiable. The permissible window for graduated escalation is defined by the continued existence of the public safety risk: so long as Transportation Engineer B continues to exercise unlicensed engineering review authority, the urgency of formal reporting increases with each passing day of inaction.
The tension between Public Welfare Paramount and Unlicensed Practice Prohibition was resolved not by weighing them against each other but by recognizing them as mutually reinforcing: the licensure system exists precisely because demonstrated competence cannot be reliably assessed on a case-by-case basis by individual engineers in the field. Even if Transportation Engineer B's reviews were technically sound in every instance, the NSPE Code and state licensing acts do not permit competence to substitute for licensure because the systemic protection afforded by the licensure framework — rigorous examination, verified education, supervised experience — is itself the mechanism through which public welfare is protected. This case teaches that when an engineer is tempted to rationalize unlicensed practice by pointing to apparent technical adequacy, that rationalization must be rejected: the principle of Public Welfare Paramount is not a free-standing empirical test of harm but is institutionally expressed through the Unlicensed Practice Prohibition itself.
The tension between Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority and the practical necessity of maintaining a contractual relationship with the State Agency was resolved by the Code in favor of non-subordination, but this case reveals that the resolution imposes asymmetric costs on Engineer A that the Code does not address. The principle that a licensed engineer's sealed documents may not be directed or revised by an unlicensed reviewer is absolute under the Code — Engineer A's obligation to refuse further compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions persists even if refusal jeopardizes the contract. However, the Code provides no safe harbor against breach-of-contract liability, no guidance on graduated escalation timelines, and no mechanism for Engineer A to compel the State Agency to assign a licensed reviewer. This gap means that the principle of Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority, while ethically unambiguous, places Engineer A in a structurally untenable position when the violating party is also the contracting authority. The case teaches that principle prioritization alone is insufficient when institutional power asymmetries make compliance with the higher-ranked principle professionally and financially punishing.
The tension between Professional Title Integrity and Qualification Transparency on one side, and Honesty in Professional Representations on the other, was not fully resolved by the Board's analysis because the Board focused on Transportation Engineer B's individual conduct rather than the State Agency's systemic title misassignment practice. These three principles converge to impose obligations not only on Engineer A to report Transportation Engineer B but also to protest the agency's broader title practice — because Engineer A's continued submission of sealed documents to a reviewer holding an engineering-implying title, without challenging that title, constitutes implicit legitimization of the misrepresentation. The principle of Honesty in Professional Representations, read in conjunction with the prohibition on aiding unlicensed practice, means that Engineer A cannot remain silent about the systemic title misassignment while only reporting the individual violation. This case teaches that title integrity principles operate at both the individual and institutional level, and that an engineer's reporting obligation is not fully discharged by identifying a single violator when the violating condition is structurally produced by an agency's personnel classification system.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance Engineer A State Agency Engagement Constraint
Engineer A faces a potential conflict between the financial and business interest in maintaining the State Agency contract and the ethical obligation to refuse to implement Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed review directives and to report the unlicensed practice.
Engineer A must avoid any conduct that creates a conflict between the obligation to refuse unlicensed reviewer direction and the practical business interest in maintaining the State Agency contract relationship, ensuring that business continuity considerations do not override the ethical obligation to refuse compliance with Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed directives.
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions
Engineer A, a consulting engineer, presents signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager, 'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes
Throughout Engineer A's engagement with the State Agency
Upon discovering that Transportation Engineer B is neither a licensed engineer nor a degreed engineer, should Engineer A refuse to revise signed and sealed contract documents based on Transportation Engineer B's directions, and does Transportation Engineer B's review and direction of changes constitute unlicensed engineering practice that Engineer A must not aid or abet?
Engineer A's obligation to refuse compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions to revise signed and sealed contract documents, given that Transportation Engineer B is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering, and the ethical status of Transportation Engineer B's review activities as unlicensed engineering practice.
Immediately cease submitting sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B for review and refuse to implement any further revision directions from Transportation Engineer B upon discovery of the unlicensed status, while simultaneously escalating to higher State Agency authority to request that a licensed engineer be designated as the reviewer
Continue submitting sealed documents to the State Agency for review while independently evaluating each of Transportation Engineer B's directed revisions on their technical merits, accepting only those revisions that Engineer A independently judges to be correct and rejecting those that are not, thereby preserving engineering judgment over the sealed documents without disrupting the contractual workflow
Suspend submission of sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B specifically while continuing to fulfill other contractual obligations to the State Agency, and request in writing that the agency designate a licensed professional engineer as the reviewing authority before further sealed documents are submitted, treating the suspension as a contractual notice of changed circumstances rather than a unilateral refusal
Upon acquiring credible knowledge that Transportation Engineer B is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering and is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering, is Engineer A obligated to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice and the State Agency's systemic 'Transportation Engineer' title misassignment to the appropriate licensing board and professional bodies, and does a brief attempt at informal agency resolution satisfy or merely defer that obligation?
Engineer A's obligation to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed engineering practice — and the State Agency's systemic title misassignment practice — to the appropriate state engineering licensing board and professional bodies, including the threshold of knowledge required to trigger that obligation and the permissible scope of graduated escalation before formal reporting.
Verify Transportation Engineer B's licensure status through publicly available state licensing board records, then report both Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice and the State Agency's systemic 'Transportation Engineer' title misassignment practice to the appropriate state engineering licensing board and relevant professional bodies, after first raising the concern with State Agency management and allowing a brief, defined window — no more than a few weeks — for the agency to designate a licensed reviewer
Report Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice to the state licensing board upon verification of the unlicensed status, without separately challenging the State Agency's broader title assignment practice, on the grounds that the systemic title issue is an administrative personnel classification matter outside the scope of Engineer A's individual reporting obligation under Section II.1.f
Raise the concern about Transportation Engineer B's qualifications and the agency's title assignment practice directly and formally with State Agency senior leadership in writing, requesting that the agency self-correct by designating a licensed engineer as the reviewer and revising its title assignment practice, and defer formal reporting to the licensing board unless and until the agency fails to respond or resolve the issue within a defined timeframe
Does the State Agency's deliberate and systemic assignment of the 'Transportation Engineer' title to non-licensed, non-degreed management personnel constitute an independent institutional violation of professional title integrity and qualification transparency that Engineer A is obligated to challenge through appropriate channels beyond reporting Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice, and does Engineer A's continued submission of sealed documents to the agency without challenging the title misrepresentation constitute implicit legitimization of that misrepresentation?
The State Agency's independent ethical and institutional culpability for systematically assigning engineering-implying titles to non-licensed, non-degreed management personnel, and Engineer A's obligation to challenge that systemic practice — not merely Transportation Engineer B's individual conduct — as a matter of professional title integrity, qualification transparency, and public welfare protection.
Formally challenge the State Agency's systemic 'Transportation Engineer' title assignment practice by raising the concern in writing with senior agency leadership, simultaneously escalating to the state engineering licensing board to report both Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice and the agency's broader institutional title misassignment pattern, and document Engineer A's objection to the practice in all subsequent professional correspondence with the agency
Report Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice to the state licensing board and raise the title concern informally with the State Agency manager, but limit the formal challenge to Transportation Engineer B's specific conduct rather than the agency's broader title classification system, on the grounds that challenging the agency's civil service personnel classification practice exceeds the scope of Engineer A's individual professional reporting obligation and risks overstepping into an administrative law dispute outside the NSPE Code's domain
Continue submitting sealed documents to the State Agency while documenting Engineer A's independent engineering judgment on each revision directed by Transportation Engineer B, and raise the systemic title concern through a professional association or NSPE chapter rather than through direct reporting to the state licensing board, treating the systemic issue as a policy advocacy matter rather than an individual ethics reporting obligation
Upon discovering that Transportation Engineer B is neither licensed nor degreed, should Engineer A report the unlicensed practice to the appropriate licensing board and simultaneously refuse to submit further sealed design documents for Transportation Engineer B's review — even if doing so jeopardizes Engineer A's contract with the State Agency?
Engineer A's Obligation to Report and Refuse Compliance Upon Discovering Transportation Engineer B's Unlicensed Status
Immediately suspend submission of sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B, simultaneously notify the State Agency manager of the licensure concern, and file a formal report with the state licensing board within a brief, defined window if the agency does not designate a licensed reviewer
Continue submitting sealed documents to the State Agency under the existing contract workflow while raising the licensure concern informally with the State Agency manager, deferring formal reporting until internal resolution is confirmed or denied
Suspend sealed document submissions to Transportation Engineer B specifically while continuing other contract deliverables, request written confirmation from the State Agency of the reviewer's qualifications, and report to the licensing board only if the agency's written response confirms the unlicensed status
Given that the State Agency has systematically assigned the engineering-implying title 'Transportation Engineer' to management personnel who are neither licensed nor degreed engineers, should Engineer A's reporting and protest obligations extend beyond Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice to encompass the agency's broader institutional title misassignment practice — including reporting the systemic pattern to the state licensing board and formally protesting the agency's personnel classification system?
Engineer Intern Misrepresented as PE and State Agency's Systemic Title Misassignment: Licensure System Integrity Preservation Obligation
Report both Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice and the State Agency's systemic title misassignment pattern to the state licensing board, and formally communicate to agency management that Engineer A cannot continue submitting sealed documents for review by personnel holding engineering-implying titles without verified licensure
Report Transportation Engineer B's individual unlicensed practice to the state licensing board as required by Section II.1.f, while treating the agency's broader title classification system as a civil service administrative matter outside Engineer A's professional reporting jurisdiction
Raise the systemic title misassignment concern with the State Agency's senior management and legal counsel in writing, requesting that the agency audit and correct its engineering title assignments across all personnel, while deferring formal licensing board reporting of the systemic practice pending the agency's response
Engineer Intern Misrepresented as PE / Engineer A
Does Engineer A bear retroactive ethical liability for having complied with Transportation Engineer B's directions to revise sealed contract documents before discovering the unlicensed status — and going forward, should Engineer A adopt proactive licensure verification of engineering reviewers exercising final approval authority over sealed documents as a standing professional practice?
Engineer A's Retroactive Ethical Liability and Professional Vigilance Obligation Regarding Prior Compliance with Unlicensed Review Directions
Acknowledge that prior compliance created no retroactive liability given good-faith reliance on the agency title, and adopt a standing practice of proactively verifying PE licensure status of all agency reviewers exercising final engineering approval authority over sealed documents before initial submission on future engagements
Treat prior compliance as ethically neutral and continue relying on state agency official title assignments as sufficient indicators of reviewer qualification, reserving independent licensure verification only for cases where specific warning signs — such as technically unsupported revision demands — prompt inquiry
Acknowledge prior compliance as a professional vigilance shortfall, document the lesson learned in firm QA procedures, and implement a contract intake checklist requiring written confirmation of reviewer licensure status from the agency before sealed documents are submitted on any future state agency engagement
Upon discovering that Transportation Engineer B is neither licensed nor degreed, what action must Engineer A take with respect to continued submission of sealed design documents for B's review and the obligation to report the unlicensed practice?
Engineer A's obligation upon discovering Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed status: whether to cease compliance with B's directions to revise sealed documents, report the unlicensed practice, or continue compliance while pursuing informal resolution through the State Agency hierarchy
Immediately suspend submission of sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B, refuse to implement any further revision directions from B, and concurrently file a formal report of unlicensed practice with the state licensing board while notifying the State Agency of the basis for suspension
Immediately suspend sealed document submissions to Transportation Engineer B and raise the unlicensed status concern informally with the State Agency's supervising manager, allowing a brief and defined window of days — not weeks — for the agency to designate a licensed engineer as reviewer before filing a formal report with the licensing board if the agency fails to act
Continue submitting sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B while independently verifying B's licensure status through public licensing board records and consulting with legal counsel about contractual obligations before taking any formal action, on the basis that unilateral refusal prior to verification and legal review could itself breach the State Agency contract and harm the public through project delay
Delay Escalation of Known Violation (Action 4) → NSPE Reporting Obligation Activated (Event 5) — failure to timely discharge
EI reports misrepresentation to marketing department before documents remain uncorrected
EI reports misrepresentation to marketing department before six-month period of inaction by the firm
ENGCO Non-Degreed Engineer-Titled Personnel
{'license': 'None (non-degreed, unlicensed)', 'titles_held': ['Engineer', 'Design Engineer'], 'employer': 'ENGCO engineering firm'}
Key personnel at engineering firm ENGCO who did not hold engineering degrees but were listed with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' misrepresenting their qualifications to the public and clients.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'ENGCO Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'BER Case 95-10'}
Unlicensed Title-Holding Engineering Staff
ENGCO Non-Degreed Personnel Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Obligation Instance
BER Case 95-10 considered engineering firm ENGCO, which listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer.' The BER concluded that the profession must not use such titles indiscriminately, even when industry and governmental agencies sometimes do.
Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Obligation
ENGCO was obligated to refrain from listing key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' and to correct this misrepresentation, so that clients and the public were not misled about the qualifications of those individuals.
Throughout the period during which ENGCO listed non-degreed personnel with engineering titles
Although the industry and governmental agencies sometimes use the term indiscriminently [sic], we in the profession must not.
ENGCO Non-Degreed Personnel Engineering Title Misrepresentation Recognition Failure
Engineering Title Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
ENGCO was obligated to possess the capability to recognize that listing key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' constituted misrepresentation of qualifications in violation of professional ethics codes and state licensing act provisions
ENGCO listed key personnel without engineering degrees using titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' in firm materials, as analyzed in BER Case 95-10
ENGCO's failure to recognize or act on the misrepresentation created by assigning engineering titles to non-degreed personnel in qualification proposals
ENGCO Non-Degreed Personnel Professional Title Usage Constraint Instance - BER Case 95-10
BER Case 95-10 considered ENGCO's practice of listing non-degreed key personnel with engineering titles, establishing that the profession must not use engineering titles indiscriminately even when industry and governmental agencies do so.
Professional Title Usage Restriction Constraint
ENGCO was prohibited from listing key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' in firm materials, as such title usage misrepresents qualifications regardless of industry custom.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; State Engineering Practice Act; BER Case 95-10
Throughout ENGCO's use of engineering-implying titles for non-degreed personnel
Engineer A Agency Title Misassignment Protest Constraint
Engineer A has discovered that the State Agency has systematically assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to management staff who are neither licensed nor degreed engineers, creating a systemic pattern of title misassignment that enables ongoing unlicensed engineering practice across the agency.
Agency Title Misassignment Protest Constraint
Engineer A is required to raise the concern about the State Agency's systemic assignment of engineering-implying titles to non-licensed, non-degreed management staff with appropriate agency leadership, and if unresolved, to report the systemic practice to the relevant licensure authority or professional body, prohibiting passive acquiescence in the institutional title misassignment that facilitates ongoing unlicensed engineering practice.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.1.e, II.1.f, II.5.a; BER Case 95-10; State Engineering Licensure Laws
Engineer A is concerned that the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
Immediately upon Engineer A's discovery of the systemic title misassignment practice
Engineer A Credential Misrepresentation Escalation Constraint
The State Agency's assignment of the title 'Transportation Engineer' to B — who is neither licensed nor degreed — constitutes a credential misrepresentation in official agency records. Engineer A has discovered this misrepresentation and must act to seek correction.
Credential Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Constraint
Engineer A, upon discovering that the State Agency's official title assignments misrepresent Transportation Engineer B's qualifications by conferring an engineering title on a non-licensed, non-degreed individual, must report this misrepresentation to the responsible agency authority and, if not corrected within a reasonable time, escalate to the state licensing board, prohibiting indefinite passive acceptance of the known credential misrepresentation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 92-2; BER Case 95-10
Immediately upon Engineer A's discovery of the credential misrepresentation, with escalation required if not corrected within a reasonable time
Engineer A learns that Transportation Engineer B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
Engineer A Engineering Title Misrepresentation Recognition of State Agency Practice
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning the title 'Transportation Engineer' and other engineering titles to non-licensed, non-degreed staff constituted engineering title misrepresentation, and to identify the professional obligations triggered by this recognition.
Engineer A observed that the State Agency had assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to B, who was neither licensed nor degreed, and that this was a systemic agency practice affecting multiple management positions.
Engineer A's concern about the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering titles to management staff who were neither licensed nor degreed engineers, and recognition that this misrepresentation created professional obligations to challenge and report.
Engineer A is concerned that the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents.
'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes
Engineer A Engineering Title Misrepresentation Recognition of Transportation Engineer B Title
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the State Agency's use of the title 'Transportation Engineer' for Engineer B — who is neither licensed nor holds an engineering degree — constituted misrepresentation of engineering qualifications to the public and to contracting parties
The State Agency assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to Engineer B, who reviewed and directed revisions to Engineer A's sealed documents without holding a license or engineering degree
Recognition that the 'Transportation Engineer' title assigned to Engineer B conveyed false impressions of licensure and professional accountability
'Engineer' titles used by individuals working for state agencies tends to convey the impression that they are licensed professional engineers, which may cause confusion among the public.
Use of creative titles such as 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer' and 'Sanitation Engineer' misrepresents qualifications.
Engineer A Engineering Title Regulatory Knowledge Applied to Transportation Engineer B
Engineering Title Regulatory Knowledge Capability
Engineer A possessed knowledge of state-specific statutory and regulatory provisions governing permissible use of engineering titles, enabling correct assessment that the title 'Transportation Engineer' assigned to a non-licensed, non-degreed individual violated applicable state licensing act provisions.
Engineer A applied knowledge of state engineering practice act title provisions to assess whether Transportation Engineer B's title was permissible given B's credentials.
Engineer A's ability to assess that Transportation Engineer B's use of an engineering title was impermissible under state law given B's lack of both licensure and engineering degree.
Engineer A learns that 'Transportation Engineer' B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer.
all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
Engineer A Engineering Title Regulatory Knowledge Regarding State Licensing Act Provisions
Engineer A possessed the capability to understand and apply state-specific statutory provisions governing permissible use of engineering titles — including knowledge that most states require a college degree and/or licensure for use of engineering titles — and to correctly assess that Engineer B's use of the 'Transportation Engineer' title did not comply with applicable state licensing act provisions
Engineer A needed to assess whether Engineer B's 'Transportation Engineer' title complied with state licensing act provisions governing engineering title usage
Application of state licensing act provisions to assess the impermissibility of Engineer B's engineering title
most states have in their state licensing act how and when the word 'engineer' can be used in a title, usually requiring a college degree and/or meeting licensing requirements
when 'non-degreed personnel have fulfilled the state requirements to be licensed, they may use the term regardless of their formal education'
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Navigation Regarding Systemic Unlicensed Practice
Engineer A possessed the capability to systematically navigate escalation pathways — from immediate project context to higher organizational authority and ultimately to external regulatory bodies — in response to the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering review authority to unlicensed personnel
Engineer A faced a systemic agency practice requiring graduated escalation from project-level challenge to external regulatory reporting
Obligation to escalate through careful, sensitive, and legally compliant channels when internal challenge to Engineer B's unlicensed practice was insufficient
is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f)
Performance of engineering services by unqualified individuals is detrimental to public safety and to the integrity of the engineering profession at large.
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Navigation for Systemic Unlicensed Practice
Engineer A possessed the capability to navigate escalation pathways — from project-level refusal to revise sealed documents, to agency-level challenge, to external reporting to the state licensure board — in a systematic manner that fulfilled professional obligations while respecting institutional channels.
Engineer A faced a systemic institutional practice requiring escalation beyond the immediate project interaction with Transportation Engineer B to address the broader pattern of unlicensed engineering review.
Engineer A's recognition that the systemic nature of the State Agency's unlicensed practice required escalation through multiple channels, from immediate refusal to comply with directed revisions to reporting to the state licensure board.
Engineer A Licensed Engineer Directed by Unlicensed Reviewer
From the time Transportation Engineer B directed changes to Engineer A's documents through the present engagement; persists as long as Engineer A continues to submit documents to Transportation Engineer B for approval
Transportation Engineer B personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes
Licensed Engineer Directed by Unlicensed Reviewer State
Engineer A, a licensed consulting engineer, having been directed to make changes to their sealed and signed contract documents based on the review and direction of Transportation Engineer B, who does not hold a professional engineering license
Engineer A declines to accept further direction from Transportation Engineer B, or the State Agency assigns a licensed engineer to the approval role
Engineer A presents signed and sealed design contract documents to Transportation Engineer B, who reviews them, makes comments, and directs changes — and Engineer A subsequently learns B is unlicensed and non-degreed
Engineer A Licensed PE Subject to Unlicensed Reviewer Direction
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Engineering design (signed and sealed contract documents)', 'obligation_triggered': 'NSPE Code Section II.1.e (not aid or abet unlawful practice) and Section II.1.f (report violation to appropriate professional bodies)'}
Licensed professional engineer who prepared and signed and sealed contract documents, was directed by unlicensed Engineer B to revise those documents based on B's engineering review, thereby being placed in the position of potentially aiding or abetting unlawful practice of engineering, and bearing obligations to refuse and report the violation.
{'type': 'association', 'target': 'Engineer B Unlicensed Agency Plan Reviewer'}
{'type': 'reporting_obligation_to', 'target': 'Appropriate Professional Bodies'}
Reporting Engineer Obligated to Challenge Unlicensed Practice
Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review, Engineer A is working in association with B.
Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…' and is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f).
Engineer A Non-Aiding Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Practice Constraint
Engineer A has discovered that Transportation Engineer B is neither licensed nor degreed, yet has been directing changes to Engineer A's sealed documents. Submitting revised documents implementing those directives would constitute aiding unlicensed engineering practice.
Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
Engineer A is absolutely prohibited from submitting revised sealed documents that implement Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed review directives, as doing so would aid and facilitate Transportation Engineer B's unlawful practice of engineering in violation of NSPE Code Section II.1.e and state engineering practice law.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; State Engineering Practice Act
Transportation Engineer B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
Immediately upon Engineer A's discovery that Transportation Engineer B is unlicensed and non-degreed, and continuing throughout any future professional engagement
Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Against Engineer B
Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the precise boundary between permissible professional collaboration and impermissible aiding of unlawful engineering practice — specifically that revising sealed documents at Engineer B's direction would constitute aiding unlawful practice under NSPE Code II.1.e
Engineer A faced institutional pressure from a state agency to revise sealed documents based on an unlicensed reviewer's direction
Recognition that submitting revised documents incorporating Engineer B's unlicensed review directions would cross the boundary into aiding unlawful practice
Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…'
Engineer A is working in association with B.
Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Against Transportation Engineer B
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that submitting revised documents incorporating Transportation Engineer B's directed changes would constitute aiding unlawful engineering practice under NSPE Code II.1.e, and to maintain the boundary between permissible professional collaboration and impermissible facilitation of unlicensed practice.
Engineer A faced institutional pressure to comply with Transportation Engineer B's directed revisions to signed and sealed contract documents, requiring recognition of the aiding-unlawful-practice boundary.
Recognition that revising sealed documents at the direction of an unlicensed reviewer and resubmitting them would constitute aiding Transportation Engineer B's unlawful practice of engineering.
Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice by Transportation Engineer B
Transportation Engineer B's review and direction of revisions to signed and sealed engineering documents constitutes the practice of engineering under state law, but B is neither licensed nor degreed as an engineer; Engineer A's compliance with those directed revisions would aid the unlawful practice.
Engineer A (licensed consulting engineer)
Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from aiding or facilitating Transportation Engineer B's unlawful practice of engineering by submitting revised documents that incorporate changes directed solely by Transportation Engineer B, and to take affirmative steps to address the unlawful practice.
Transportation Engineer B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering.
Upon discovery that Transportation Engineer B is unlicensed; immediately and prospectively
Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlicensed Practice Constraint Instance - Transportation Engineer B Revision Direction
Engineer A, a licensed consulting engineer, was directed by Transportation Engineer B — who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering — to revise signed and sealed contract documents based on Engineer B's review comments. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from complying with those directives.
Engineer A is absolutely prohibited from revising signed and sealed contract documents in compliance with Transportation Engineer B's review directives, as doing so would aid and abet Transportation Engineer B's unlawful practice of engineering in violation of NSPE Code Section II.1.e.
Throughout the duration of Engineer A's professional association with the State Agency project involving Transportation Engineer B
Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlicensed Practice Obligation Instance
Engineer B, a non-licensed individual holding the title 'Transportation Engineer' at a state agency, reviewed and directed revisions to Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents. Engineer A, working in association with Engineer B, was obligated under NSPE Section II.1.e not to aid or abet this unlawful practice.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from aiding or abetting the unlawful practice of engineering by Engineer B, who directed revisions to Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents without holding a professional engineering license.
Upon discovery that Engineer B directed revisions to signed and sealed documents without holding a PE license
In light of the fact that Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review, Engineer A is working in association with B.
Engineer A Profession Honor Preservation Against Title Erosion Constraint
The State Agency's systemic assignment of engineering titles to unqualified staff — and the resulting exercise of engineering approval authority by those staff — represents a profession-wide threat to licensure integrity that Engineer A is obligated to resist rather than passively accept.
Profession Honor Preservation Through Licensure Integrity Constraint
Engineer A is required to actively resist the erosion of licensure integrity caused by the State Agency's practice of assigning engineering-implying titles to unlicensed, non-degreed management staff who exercise engineering approval authority, prohibiting passive acquiescence in a practice that diminishes the profession, undermines public confidence, and endangers public health and safety.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 95-10; State Engineering Licensure Laws
Ongoing; applies throughout Engineer A's professional engagement with the State Agency
Engineer A Professional Licensure Rationale Articulation in Challenge to State Agency
Professional Licensure System Rationale Articulation Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to understand and articulate the public interest rationale underlying professional licensure requirements — including why engineering review and approval authority requires licensure — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical significance of Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice and the State Agency's title misrepresentation.
Engineer A needed to articulate the professional and public safety rationale for challenging Transportation Engineer B's authority to direct revisions to signed and sealed documents.
Engineer A's ability to articulate why the State Agency's practice of assigning engineering review authority to non-licensed, non-degreed staff violated the public interest rationale of the licensure system.
Engineer A Professional Licensure System Rationale Articulation in Unlicensed Practice Context
Engineer A possessed the capability to understand and articulate the public interest rationale underlying professional licensure — including competence demonstration, exclusion of unqualified individuals, and maintenance of professional integrity — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical significance of Engineer B's unlicensed practice and the State Agency's title misrepresentation
Engineer A needed to articulate why Engineer B's unlicensed practice and the State Agency's title misrepresentation were ethically significant beyond mere technical violations
Application of licensure rationale to assess the ethical significance of Engineer B's unlicensed review authority and the State Agency's creative title usage
Licensing requirements are imposed upon highly skilled professional occupations such as medicine, law, and engineering. These requirements protect the public interest by ensuring members of the profession have demonstrated acceptable levels of competence and expertise and by excluding unqualified individuals who might misrepresent their skills and abilities to take advantage of the unsuspecting public.
Professional engineers owe ethical duties to the public that unlicensed individuals merely holding the title of 'Engineer' do not owe.
Engineer A Public Confidence Protection Through Challenge of Unlicensed Practice
Public Confidence in Profession Protection Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that acquiescing to Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed review and direction would undermine public confidence in the engineering profession and the intent of licensure, and to act to protect that confidence by fulfilling challenge and reporting obligations.
Engineer A recognized that the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering titles to unqualified staff undermined public confidence in the profession and required professional action.
Engineer A's concern about the State Agency's systemic title misrepresentation practice and recognition that professional integrity required challenging and reporting the conduct rather than acquiescing.
Engineer A Public Confidence in Profession Protection Regarding Unlicensed Practice
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that acquiescing in Engineer B's unlicensed practice and the State Agency's engineering title misrepresentation would undermine public confidence in the engineering profession and the intent of licensure, and to act to protect that confidence by fulfilling reporting and challenge obligations
Engineer A faced pressure to revise sealed documents based on an unlicensed reviewer's direction, requiring recognition of the broader professional integrity implications
Recognition that compliance with Engineer B's directions would diminish the profession and endanger the public by undermining the accountability structure that licensure creates
Allowing unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as 'Engineers' with none of the associated ethical or legal obligations diminishes the profession and endangers the public by posing a significant threat to public health and safety.
This clearly undermines both the public's confidence in the profession and the intent of licensure that professional engineers adhere to minimum standards and technical competence obtained through significant education and practical experience as evidenced by successful completion of a rigorous examination.
Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Regarding Systemic Unlicensed Review Practice
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering review authority to unqualified personnel created a public safety risk requiring escalation beyond the immediate project context to regulatory authorities.
Engineer A identified that Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice was not an isolated incident but part of a systemic State Agency practice of assigning engineering titles and review authority to unqualified staff.
Engineer A's recognition that the systemic nature of the State Agency's unlicensed practice — affecting multiple management positions — created a public safety risk warranting escalation to the state licensure board and potentially other regulatory bodies.
Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Regarding Systemic Unqualified Review Practice
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering review authority to unqualified personnel created a public safety risk requiring escalation beyond the immediate project context to regulatory authorities
Engineer A identified a systemic agency practice of assigning engineering review authority to non-licensed, non-degreed personnel, creating a public safety risk requiring escalation
Recognition that the systemic nature of Engineer B's unlicensed review practice — not merely the individual instance — created a public welfare escalation obligation
Unqualified individuals providing these services when they are not under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer have caused harm to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineer A Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation Instance
The public relies on state agency review processes to ensure that engineering documents meet applicable standards. When that review is performed by an unlicensed, non-degreed individual with authority to direct revisions to signed and sealed documents, the public safety function of the review process is compromised. Engineer A's obligation to protect public welfare required escalation beyond the immediate refusal to comply.
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to escalate the public safety risk posed by Engineer B's unlicensed engineering review practice — including directing revisions to signed and sealed contract documents — to appropriate regulatory authorities and professional bodies, recognizing that the public relies on state agency review processes to ensure engineering documents meet applicable standards.
Upon discovery that Engineer B, an unlicensed individual, was performing engineering review functions with authority to direct revisions to signed and sealed documents
These requirements protect the public interest by ensuring members of the profession have demonstrated acceptable levels of competence and expertise and by excluding unqualified individuals who might misrepresent their skills and abilities to take advantage of the unsuspecting public.
Engineer A Public Welfare Safety Escalation Regarding Systemic Unqualified Review Practice
The State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering titles and review authority to unqualified staff creates ongoing public safety risk, as engineering documents reviewed and approved by unqualified individuals may not meet applicable safety standards.
Engineer A is obligated to escalate the systemic public safety risk created by the State Agency's practice of assigning engineering review authority to non-licensed, non-degreed staff to appropriate regulatory authorities and professional bodies, beyond the immediate agency relationship.
Upon discovery of the systemic practice; without undue delay
Engineer A Qualifications Non-Falsification Compliance Under NSPE Code II.5.a
Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to ensure that qualifications and associations were accurately represented — including not permitting misrepresentation of Engineer B's qualifications through acquiescence in the 'Transportation Engineer' title — consistent with NSPE Code Section II.5.a prohibiting falsification of qualifications or permitting misrepresentation of associates' qualifications
Engineer A was working in association with Engineer B, triggering obligations under NSPE Code II.5.a not to permit misrepresentation of Engineer B's qualifications
Obligation under NSPE Code II.5.a not to falsify qualifications or permit misrepresentation of associates' qualifications, applied to Engineer B's unlicensed status
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a. is very clear: 'Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments.'
Engineer A Qualifications Non-Falsification Constraint Instance - Association with Transportation Engineer B
NSPE Code Section II.5.a prohibits engineers from falsifying qualifications or permitting misrepresentation of associates' qualifications. Engineer A's continued professional association with Transportation Engineer B — who holds an engineering title without licensure or degree — implicates this constraint.
Engineer A and the State Agency are prohibited from falsifying qualifications or permitting misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications — including permitting Transportation Engineer B to be held out as having engineering authority through an engineering-implying title — in violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a. is very clear: 'Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications.'
Throughout Engineer A's professional association with the State Agency and Transportation Engineer B
Engineer A Qualifications Non-Falsification Obligation Instance
NSPE Code Section II.5.a is identified as directly applicable: 'Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications.' The State Agency's title assignment to Engineer B constitutes a misrepresentation of qualifications that Engineer A, working in association with Engineer B, must not permit.
Engineer A (Licensed PE) and State Agency
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
Engineer A and the State Agency were obligated under NSPE Code Section II.5.a not to falsify qualifications or permit misrepresentation of qualifications — including the State Agency's assignment of the 'Transportation Engineer' title to Engineer B, who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering.
It should be noted that in the present case, NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a. is very clear: 'Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments.'
Throughout the period of Engineer A's association with Engineer B in the context of the contract document review
Engineer A Reporting Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Practice Constraint
Engineer A has discovered that Transportation Engineer B is neither licensed nor degreed, yet is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering. Engineer A holds an affirmative obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.f to report this violation to appropriate professional bodies.
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
Engineer A is required to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice of engineering to the appropriate state licensing board or professional body, and is prohibited from passively acquiescing in or facilitating that unlicensed practice through continued submission of revised documents implementing Transportation Engineer B's directives.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.f; State Engineering Practice Act; Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard
Immediately upon Engineer A's discovery that Transportation Engineer B is unlicensed and non-degreed
Engineer A Sealed Document Integrity Defense Against Engineer B Direction
Sealed Document Integrity Defense Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that revising signed and sealed contract documents based solely on the direction of unlicensed Transportation Engineer B would compromise the integrity of the professional seal and constitute aiding unlawful practice
Engineer A was directed by non-licensed Engineer B to revise signed and sealed contract documents, requiring Engineer A to defend the integrity of those documents
Obligation to refuse revisions directed by Engineer B and to defend the integrity of sealed documents against unlicensed authority
Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review
Engineer A Sealed Document Integrity Defense Against Transportation Engineer B Direction
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Transportation Engineer B's direction to revise signed and sealed contract documents threatened the integrity of the professional seal, and to defend that integrity by refusing to make revisions directed by an unlicensed, non-degreed reviewer.
Transportation Engineer B directed changes to Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents, triggering Engineer A's obligation to refuse revision under unlicensed authority.
Recognition that compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directed changes to signed and sealed documents would compromise the professional seal's meaning and Engineer A's professional responsibility.
Engineer A Sealed Document Non-Subordination Constraint Instance - Transportation Engineer B
Transportation Engineer B holds an engineering-implying title at the State Agency and exercises statutory approval authority over Engineer A's sealed design documents, but is neither a licensed professional engineer nor holds an engineering degree. Engineer A's obligation to maintain sealed document integrity supersedes the institutional authority of the unlicensed reviewer.
Unlicensed Reviewer Direction Compliance Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from treating Transportation Engineer B's review comments and revision directives as authoritative engineering direction, and must not revise signed and sealed contract documents based solely on the direction of an unlicensed, non-degreed individual regardless of that individual's institutional title or agency authority.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.1.e, II.1.f, II.5.a; State Engineering Practice Act
Throughout Engineer A's professional engagement with the State Agency project
Professional engineers are personally and legally responsible for their services and must comply with a professional code of ethics.
Engineer A Sealed Document Non-Subordination Obligation Instance
Engineer B, holding the title 'Transportation Engineer' at a state agency without being licensed or degreed in engineering, reviewed Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents and directed revisions. Engineer A's professional seal represents personal accountability for the technical content, and subordinating that authority to Engineer B's direction undermines responsible charge and public safety.
Sealed Document Revision Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refuse to revise his signed and sealed contract documents based solely on the direction of Engineer B, who is not a licensed professional engineer and lacks the authority, qualifications, and legal standing to direct changes to sealed engineering work product.
Upon receipt of Engineer B's direction to revise signed and sealed contract documents
Engineer A Sealed Document Non-Subordination to Transportation Engineer B Direction
Transportation Engineer B directed changes to Engineer A's signed and sealed design contract documents, constituting the practice of engineering under state law, despite being neither licensed nor degreed as an engineer.
Engineer A is obligated to refuse to revise signed and sealed contract documents based solely on the direction of Transportation Engineer B, who is unlicensed and non-degreed, and to assert that the authority over sealed engineering documents rests exclusively with licensed engineers.
Upon discovery that Transportation Engineer B is unlicensed; applicable to all past and future directed revisions
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Challenge Against Transportation Engineer B
Engineer A presented signed and sealed design contract documents to State Agency manager Transportation Engineer B, who directed changes constituting the practice of engineering under state law, but is neither licensed nor degreed as an engineer.
Unlicensed Practice Challenge and Refusal Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to refuse to comply with directed revisions to signed and sealed contract documents from Transportation Engineer B, who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering, and to formally challenge Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice of engineering.
Upon discovery that Transportation Engineer B is neither licensed nor degreed; immediately and prospectively for all future directed revisions
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Challenge and Refusal Obligation Instance
Engineer B, a non-licensed individual at a state agency, directed Engineer A to revise signed and sealed contract documents. Engineer A's ethical obligations under NSPE Section II.1.e required refusal and challenge of this unlicensed direction.
Engineer A was obligated to refuse compliance with Engineer B's direction to revise signed and sealed contract documents, to challenge Engineer B's unlicensed practice, and to refrain from aiding or abetting the unlawful practice of engineering by Engineer B.
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Recognition of Transportation Engineer B
Unlicensed Practice Recognition Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that Transportation Engineer B's activities — reviewing signed and sealed contract documents, making comments, and directing changes — constituted the practice of engineering under state law, and that B was neither licensed nor degreed as an engineer.
Engineer A presented signed and sealed design contract documents to Transportation Engineer B for final approval and subsequently learned B held no engineering license or degree.
Engineer A's recognition that Transportation Engineer B's review and direction activities constituted unlicensed engineering practice under state law, triggering professional obligations to challenge and report.
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint Instance - Transportation Engineer B
Engineer A discovered that Transportation Engineer B, who holds an engineering-implying title at the State Agency but is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering, has been reviewing and directing revisions to Engineer A's sealed contract documents — constituting the unlawful practice of engineering.
Engineer A is obligated and constrained to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice of engineering to appropriate professional bodies, and is prohibited from remaining silent about or passively acquiescing in Engineer B's unlicensed practice.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.f; State Engineering Practice Act
Upon Engineer A's discovery that Transportation Engineer B is performing engineering review without licensure
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation
From the moment Engineer A learns of Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed status, persisting until Engineer A fulfills the reporting obligation or the unlicensed practice ceases
Unlicensed Practice by Third Party State
Engineer A's awareness that Transportation Engineer B is engaging in the practice of engineering without holding the required professional license, triggering Engineer A's reporting obligation
Engineer A reports the unlicensed practice to the appropriate authority, or the State Agency removes Transportation Engineer B from the engineering approval role
Engineer A learns that Transportation Engineer B is neither a licensed engineer nor a degreed engineer, yet has been practicing engineering by reviewing, commenting on, and directing changes to sealed engineering documents
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation Instance
Engineer B, a non-licensed individual holding the title 'Transportation Engineer,' performed acts constituting the practice of engineering by reviewing and directing revisions to Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents. NSPE Section II.1.f requires Engineer A to report this violation.
Unlicensed Practice Reporting to Professional Bodies Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B's unlicensed engineering practice — including Engineer B's review and direction of revisions to signed and sealed contract documents — to appropriate professional bodies and licensing authorities.
Engineer A is working in association with B. Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…' and is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f).
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge of Transportation Engineer B
Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to formulate, document, and communicate a professional challenge to Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice — including refusing to revise sealed documents and reporting the unlicensed practice to the state licensure board — and to advise the State Agency of the professional and legal implications of assigning engineering review authority to unqualified staff.
Engineer A identified that Transportation Engineer B was performing unlicensed engineering practice and that the State Agency had a systemic practice of assigning engineering titles to unqualified staff.
Engineer A's recognition of the obligation to refuse directed revisions and to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice and the State Agency's systemic title misrepresentation to the appropriate licensing board.
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting of Engineer B to Professional Bodies
Engineer A possessed the capability to formulate and communicate a professional challenge to Engineer B's unlicensed practice and to report the violation to appropriate professional bodies, including the state licensure board
Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B's unlicensed practice and the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering review authority to unqualified personnel
Obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.f to report Engineer B's unlicensed engineering practice to appropriate professional bodies
Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting of Transportation Engineer B to Licensing Board
Engineer A discovered that Transportation Engineer B, who directed revisions to signed and sealed engineering documents in a manner constituting the practice of engineering under state law, is neither licensed nor degreed as an engineer, and that the State Agency has a systemic practice of assigning engineering titles to unqualified staff.
Engineer A is obligated to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice of engineering — and the State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering titles and review authority to non-licensed, non-degreed staff — to the appropriate state engineering licensing board and professional bodies.
Upon discovery of the unlicensed practice; without undue delay
Engineer A Unlicensed Reviewer Direction Non-Compliance Constraint
Engineer A has presented signed and sealed design contract documents to Transportation Engineer B, who has reviewed them, made comments, and directed changes — all constituting the practice of engineering under state law — despite holding neither a PE license nor an engineering degree.
Engineer A is prohibited from revising signed and sealed contract documents based solely on the direction of Transportation Engineer B, who is neither a licensed engineer nor a degreed engineer, and whose review and direction activities constitute the unlawful practice of engineering under state law.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; State Engineering Practice Act; BER Case 95-10
Throughout the duration of Engineer A's engagement with the State Agency and any future engagements where Transportation Engineer B exercises review authority
Engineer A Unsupervised Unlicensed Practice Public Safety Harm Assessment
Unsupervised Unlicensed Practice Public Safety Harm Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize and assess the specific public safety harm caused by Engineer B performing engineering review services without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer, and to understand that Engineer B's engineering title created false public accountability expectations
Engineer B performed engineering review and directed revisions to sealed documents without licensure or direct supervision by a licensed PE, creating public safety risks
Recognition that Engineer B's unsupervised unlicensed engineering review created direct public safety risks and that Engineer B bore none of the professional ethical or legal accountability that the 'Transportation Engineer' title implied
Engineer A presents documents to B meets B reviews documents and directs changes
Engineer A presents signed and sealed design contract documents to B before Engineer A discovers B is neither licensed nor degreed
Engineer B Unlicensed Agency Plan Reviewer
{'license': 'None (unlicensed)', 'title': 'Engineer (non-licensed)', 'conduct': 'Reviewed signed and sealed engineering documents and directed changes'}
Non-engineer individual holding an engineer-titled position who reviewed Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents and directed revisions, thereby engaging in unlawful practice of engineering without a professional engineering license.
{'type': 'directing_changes_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Licensed PE Subject to Unlicensed Reviewer Direction'}
{'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'Appropriate Professional Bodies'}
Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review.
Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…' and is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies.
Engineer B Unsupervised Unlicensed Engineering Practice Public Safety Harm Instance
Engineer B, a non-licensed, non-degreed individual, performed engineering review functions and directed revisions to signed and sealed contract documents without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer. The BER discussion identifies this as a specific category of harm to public health, safety, and welfare.
State Agency (through Engineer B's position)
Unsupervised Unlicensed Engineering Practice Public Safety Harm Recognition Obligation
The State Agency was obligated to recognize and act upon the specific public safety harm caused by Engineer B performing engineering review services — including directing revisions to signed and sealed contract documents — without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer, and to ensure that all such engineering review functions are performed by or under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals.
Throughout the period during which Engineer B performed engineering review functions without licensed supervision
There are ethical concerns when unqualified individuals engage in the practice of engineering.
Engineer Intern BER Case 92-2 Credential Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Constraint Instance
The engineer intern observed that firm advertising documents listed them as a PE, reported this to the marketing department, but after six months the documents had not been corrected. The BER noted that continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge could raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.
The engineer intern in BER Case 92-2, having reported the firm's misrepresentation of their licensure status to the marketing department and received no corrective action after six months, was constrained to escalate the matter to appropriate authority, and was prohibited from treating the initial notification as a complete discharge of the correction obligation when the firm had actual knowledge of the error but continued inaction.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 92-2
Six months after initial notification to marketing department, upon recognition that corrective action had not been taken
continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct
Engineer Intern Credential Misrepresentation in Firm Advertising
From initial misrepresentation through at least six months of inaction after EI's report to marketing department
Credential Misrepresentation by Firm State
Firm's advertising documents listing engineer intern as PE in BER Case 92-2
Correction of advertising documents (not confirmed within the six-month period described)
continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.
Firm's advertising documents listed engineer intern as a PE
Engineering Title Misrepresentation by Firms and Agencies
Ongoing systemic condition; instantiated in BER Case 95-10 (ENGCO) and the present case
Firms and agencies using engineering-implying titles for non-degreed, unlicensed personnel
Correction of titles, enforcement of state licensing act title restrictions, or licensing of affected personnel
Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications.
Firms and agencies assigning titles such as 'Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' and 'Sanitation Engineer' to individuals without engineering degrees or licenses
Engineering Title Usage Standard - State Agency Application
State licensing board and professional engineering societies
State Statutory and Professional Norms Governing Use of the Title 'Engineer'
the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
Engineer A in evaluating the State Agency's title assignment practices
Governs the State Agency's practice of assigning the title 'Transportation Engineer' to unlicensed, non-degreed staff performing engineering review functions, establishing the impropriety of this practice and Engineer A's obligations in response
Professional engineering community and state licensing boards
Professional Norms Governing Use of 'Engineer' Title
Use of the title, 'engineer,' conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice.
BER in analyzing the ethical implications of Engineer B's title and role
Applied to evaluate the improper use of titles such as 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' and 'Sanitation Engineer' by unlicensed individuals, and the broader harm such misrepresentation causes to public confidence and professional integrity
Honesty in Professional Representations Applied To Agency Title Use
State Agency's representation of Transportation Engineer B's qualifications through title assignment
The State Agency's use of the 'Transportation Engineer' title for non-licensed, non-degreed staff constitutes a misrepresentation of qualifications that violates the honesty principle as applied to professional title use in engineering contexts
Honesty in professional representations requires that titles accurately reflect qualifications; the agency's use of an engineering title for an unqualified individual is a form of institutional misrepresentation that Engineer A is entitled — and obligated — to challenge
Honesty obligations apply to institutional representations as well as individual ones; Engineer A must challenge the misrepresentation regardless of the agency's status as a client
Institutional Title Misrepresentation Established
Institutional Title Misrepresentation Established (Event 4) → NSPE Reporting Obligation Activated (Event 5)
Licensed Engineer A Directed by Unlicensed Reviewer
From receipt of direction to revise sealed documents based on non-Engineer B's review through resolution
Engineer A's professional situation of being directed to revise sealed documents by an unlicensed individual
Engineer A's refusal to comply, reporting to appropriate bodies, or resolution of non-Engineer B's authority
Client or agency direction to Engineer A to revise signed and sealed contract documents based on non-Engineer B's review
Licensure Integrity Invoked as Systemic Protection Rationale
Agency practice of assigning engineer titles to unlicensed staff
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
The BER grounds the entire analysis in the systemic public protection function of engineering licensure, establishing that the ethical obligations of Engineer A — including the reporting obligation — derive from the need to protect the licensure system from erosion by unlicensed practice and title misuse
Licensure integrity is not merely a regulatory compliance matter but an ethical obligation grounded in the public protection rationale of the licensure system; engineers who permit or fail to challenge erosion of that system bear ethical responsibility for the resulting public harm
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
The systemic public protection function of licensure overrides institutional convenience or deference to agency authority; Engineer A must act to protect the system
Professional engineers owe ethical duties to the public that unlicensed individuals merely holding the title of 'Engineer' do not owe. Professional engineers are personally and legally responsible for their services and must comply with a professional code of ethics.
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Invoked By Engineer A Regarding Systemic Agency Practice
State Agency's institutional policy of assigning engineering titles to unqualified management staff
Employer Concurrence Requirement for Post-Obligation Advocacy
The State Agency's systematic practice of assigning engineering titles to non-licensed, non-degreed staff in positions with authority to review and approve engineering documents constitutes a systemic threat to the licensure framework that Engineer A is obligated to address
Engineer A's concern extends beyond the individual case of Transportation Engineer B to the systemic agency practice, which requires reporting to licensing authorities to protect the integrity of the licensure system as a whole
Systemic threats to licensure integrity require reporting regardless of the agency's status as a client, because the public protection rationale of licensure cannot be subordinated to client relationship considerations
all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering.
Licensure Public Trust Preservation Constraint Instance - Engineering Profession Systemic Title Misuse
The case discussion establishes the foundational public interest rationale for engineering licensure and the harm caused when unlicensed individuals hold engineering titles without the associated obligations, framing this as a systemic constraint on the entire engineering profession.
Engineering Profession, Licensed Professional Engineers, Government Agencies
The engineering profession, licensed professional engineers, and government agencies are constrained to preserve the public trust that underlies the engineering licensure system by refusing to permit unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as engineers without the associated ethical and legal obligations, on the grounds that such conduct undermines public confidence and endangers public health and safety.
NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Practice Acts; BER Cases 92-2 and 95-10
Ongoing as a foundational constraint on all professional conduct within the engineering ecosystem
List Unqualified Staff as Engineers (Action 5) → Institutional Title Misrepresentation Established (Event 4) → Unlicensed Status Discovered (Event 3)
Misleading Engineering Title Conferred by State Agencies
Ongoing systemic condition in state agency employment practices
Consulting engineers interacting with agency reviewers
Misleading Engineering Title Conferred by Agency State
State agencies assigning engineering-implying titles to management staff without PE licenses or engineering degrees
Agency correction of title usage to comply with state licensing act requirements
State agencies assigning titles such as 'Engineer' to personnel who are not licensed professional engineers
NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
Engineer A and state licensing boards in evaluating professional conduct obligations
Provides model rules governing professional conduct obligations including the duty to report unlicensed practice and the prohibition on allowing unlicensed individuals to perform engineering functions, applicable to Engineer A's situation
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section II.1.e (Prohibition on Aiding Unlawful Practice)
BER in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
Cited to establish Engineer A's obligation not to aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by non-engineer B
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section II.1.f (Reporting Obligation)
BER in analyzing Engineer A's reporting obligations
Cited to establish Engineer A's affirmative obligation to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section II.5.a (Qualification Misrepresentation)
Cited as the primary normative authority prohibiting engineers from falsifying or permitting misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications, directly applicable to Engineer A's situation with non-engineer B
Engineer A in evaluating professional obligations
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations upon discovering that Transportation Engineer B is unlicensed and performing the practice of engineering, including obligations to protect the public and uphold professional integrity
Non-Engineer B Unlicensed Title and Review Authority
From the point at which Engineer B was assigned to review Engineer A's sealed documents through the present case
Unlicensed Reviewer Approval Authority State
Non-Engineer B's exercise of engineering review authority over Engineer A's sealed contract documents
Not yet terminated; ongoing unless Engineer B's authority is revoked or Engineer A refuses to comply
Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…' and is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies
Engineer A directed to revise signed and sealed contract documents based on non-Engineer B's review
Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority Invoked By Engineer A
Revisions directed by Transportation Engineer B to Engineer A's sealed documents
Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents were subjected to review and directed revision by Transportation Engineer B, who is unlicensed and non-degreed; Engineer A's professional seal cannot be subordinated to directions from a person bearing no equivalent legal or professional accountability
Engineer A must independently evaluate any revisions directed by B and refuse to implement changes that are not independently verified as professionally sound, because B's directions carry no licensed engineering authority
Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority to Unlicensed Direction
Engineer A, a consulting engineer, presents signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager, 'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering.
The engineer's seal represents personal professional judgment and legal accountability that cannot be overridden by unlicensed direction; Engineer A must decline to implement B's directions without independent professional concurrence
Engineer A, a consulting engineer, presents signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager, 'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes.
Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority Invoked for Engineer A
Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents
Engineer B's direction to revise those documents
Engineer A must refuse to revise his signed and sealed contract documents based solely on the direction of Engineer B, who is not a licensed engineer, because the seal represents Engineer A's personal professional judgment and legal accountability
The act of signing and sealing engineering documents creates a professional and legal commitment that cannot be overridden by the direction of an unlicensed individual, regardless of that individual's agency authority or title
The engineer's seal represents personal professional accountability that cannot be delegated; Engineer A must assert this authority and decline to revise sealed documents based on Engineer B's unlicensed direction
Prior Compliance Retroactively Problematized
Profession-Wide Engineering Title Integrity Erosion
Ongoing systemic condition documented across multiple BER cases and the present discussion
Profession-Wide Title Integrity Erosion State
Systemic use of engineering-implying titles by unlicensed individuals across industry and government agencies
Systematic enforcement of title restrictions and profession-wide correction of misuse
Allowing unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as 'Engineers' with none of the associated ethical or legal obligations diminishes the profession and endangers the public.
This clearly undermines both the public's confidence in the profession and the intent of licensure.
Widespread industry and governmental indiscriminate use of the term 'engineer' for unlicensed personnel
Profession-Wide Title Integrity Erosion from Agency Practice
Ongoing; persists as long as the State Agency and potentially other agencies continue the practice of assigning engineering titles to unlicensed, non-degreed staff in approval roles
Licensed professional engineers submitting documents for approval
Public relying on regulatory review integrity
Systematic use of engineering-implying titles by unqualified government agency staff exercising engineering approval authority, undermining public confidence in licensure protections
Not yet terminated; would require systemic policy change or regulatory enforcement
Engineer A's discovery that the State Agency's titling practice is institutionalized across management positions, not limited to a single individual
Profession Honor Preservation Constraint Instance - Engineering Title Misuse by Agencies
The case discussion establishes that while industry and governmental agencies sometimes use engineering titles indiscriminately, the profession must not acquiesce in this practice, as it diminishes the profession and endangers the public.
Licensed Professional Engineers and Engineering Profession
Licensed professional engineers and the engineering profession are constrained to actively resist the erosion of licensure integrity caused by government agencies and firms assigning engineering-implying titles to unlicensed, non-degreed individuals, and are prohibited from passively acquiescing in such practices on the grounds that they are industry custom or administratively convenient.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 95-10; State Engineering Practice Acts
Ongoing as long as the practice of assigning engineering titles to unqualified individuals continues
This clearly undermines both the public's confidence in the profession and the intent of licensure
Professional Title Integrity Invoked Against Engineer B Title Use
Engineer B holds an engineer-titled agency position without being a licensed professional engineer, creating a misrepresentation of qualifications that Engineer A and the BER are obligated to challenge; the agency's use of the engineer title for Engineer B violates NSPE Section II.5.a
The use of an engineer title by an unlicensed individual in an agency role conveys the impression of licensure to the public and to engineers who interact with that individual, constituting a misrepresentation of qualifications that the profession must challenge
Professional Title Integrity and Anti-Misrepresentation Obligation
The anti-misrepresentation obligation is clear under NSPE Section II.5.a and overrides any deference to agency titling practices
Professional Title Integrity Invoked in BER Case 92-2 EI Misrepresentation
Firm advertising documents listing EI as PE
Marketing department's failure to correct the error after six months
In BER Case 92-2, an engineer intern discovered that firm advertising listed him as a licensed PE; the EI appropriately reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, and the BER concluded that continued inaction after actual knowledge of the error would raise questions of improper and unethical conduct
The obligation to correct title misrepresentation is triggered by actual knowledge; the EI fulfilled the initial obligation by reporting internally, but the firm's continued inaction after knowledge creates an independent ethical violation
In BER Case 92-2, an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE. The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months, the documents had not been corrected.
The anti-misrepresentation obligation overrides any institutional inertia; the firm's failure to correct after actual knowledge transforms negligent oversight into potential ethical misconduct
Professional Title Integrity Invoked in BER Case 95-10 ENGCO Non-Degreed Personnel
ENGCO qualification proposals listing non-degreed personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer'
In BER Case 95-10, engineering firm ENGCO listed non-degreed key personnel with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer'; the BER concluded that while industry and government sometimes use the term indiscriminately, the profession must not, and that state licensing acts typically require a degree and/or licensure for use of the engineer title
The profession bears a self-regulatory obligation to maintain title integrity even when external actors (industry, government) use the term loosely; the exception for non-degreed personnel who have met licensure requirements confirms that the principle is qualification-based, not education-based alone
The profession's self-regulatory obligation to maintain title integrity is not waived by industry or government practice; ENGCO's use of engineer titles for non-degreed, non-licensed personnel violated the principle
when 'non-degreed personnel have fulfilled the state requirements to be licensed, they may use the term regardless of their formal education.'
Professional Title Integrity Violated By State Agency Through Transportation Engineer B Title
State Agency's systematic assignment of engineering titles to unqualified management staff
The State Agency assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to individual B, who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering, thereby misrepresenting B's qualifications to consulting engineers and the public who rely on the agency's review process
Engineer A has an obligation to challenge the agency's use of engineering titles for unqualified personnel, both as a matter of professional title integrity and as a mechanism to protect the public from unqualified engineering review
Title integrity and public protection obligations override deference to the agency's internal personnel classification decisions, because the misrepresentation affects the integrity of engineering review processes
Public Safety at Risk from Unlicensed Engineering Practice
Ongoing while unlicensed individuals perform engineering services without direct PE supervision
Public health, safety, and welfare endangered by unqualified individuals performing engineering services without PE supervision
Enforcement of licensure requirements, correction of title misuse, or placement of unlicensed practitioners under direct PE supervision
Unqualified individuals providing engineering services without direct personal supervision of a licensed PE
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Regarding Unqualified Engineering Review
State Agency's use of unlicensed staff to review and approve engineering contract documents
The public relies on state agency review processes to ensure that engineering documents meet applicable standards; when that review is performed by an unlicensed, non-degreed individual, the public is exposed to the risk of inadequate review of infrastructure designs, triggering Engineer A's paramount obligation to protect public welfare
Public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to report the unlicensed practice and challenge the agency's title misuse, because the public safety implications of unqualified engineering review extend beyond Engineer A's individual project to all projects reviewed by similarly unqualified agency staff
Public welfare paramount overrides deference to the agency as a client; Engineer A must report the unlicensed practice to protect the public from the systemic risk of unqualified engineering review
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by BER in Unlicensed Practice Context
Engineer B's direction of sealed document revisions
The BER invokes public welfare as the foundational rationale for engineering licensure requirements and as the primary harm caused by unlicensed practice and title misrepresentation, establishing that Engineer A's obligation to report Engineer B flows from the public welfare obligation
In this context, public welfare requires that the licensure system be protected from erosion by unlicensed practice, because the public relies on licensure as a proxy for competence and accountability; Engineer A's reporting obligation is grounded in this welfare obligation
Public welfare obligation overrides any deference to Engineer B's agency authority, because Engineer B's unlicensed status means the public protection rationale of licensure is being circumvented
Qualification Transparency Invoked for Agency Engineer Title Use
Creative titles such as 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' 'Sanitation Engineer'
The BER identifies that engineer titles used by agency staff convey the impression of licensure to the public, and that state licensing acts typically govern when the word 'engineer' may be used in a title; Engineer B's agency title violates qualification transparency because it misrepresents licensure status
Qualification transparency requires that engineer titles accurately signal the holder's actual qualifications; agency use of engineer titles for unlicensed staff creates systematic public confusion about the accountability and competence of persons performing engineering review functions
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
The transparency obligation is not waived by agency convention; the profession must maintain title integrity even when agencies use the term loosely
Qualification Transparency Violated By State Agency In Transportation Engineer B Title Assignment
Transportation Engineer B's use of engineering title without licensure or engineering degree
The State Agency's assignment of the 'Transportation Engineer' title to a non-licensed, non-degreed individual misrepresents that individual's qualifications to consulting engineers and the public, undermining the transparency required for accurate assessment of engineering review competence
Qualification transparency requires that engineering titles accurately reflect the holder's credentials; Engineer A must challenge the agency's title assignment and disclose the qualification discrepancy to appropriate authorities
Qualification transparency obligations require disclosure of title misrepresentation regardless of the agency's status as a client, because accurate title representation is essential to the integrity of the engineering review process
Is it ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering when “Transportation Engineer” B is not qualified for licensure based on education, examination, and experience?
Did Engineer A's prior compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions — before discovering the unlicensed status — constitute aiding unlawful engineering practice, and does that prior compliance create any retroactive ethical liability for Engineer A?
Does the State Agency bear independent ethical responsibility for creating and perpetuating the misleading 'Transportation Engineer' title, and should Engineer A's reporting obligation extend to the agency's systemic title misassignment practice — not merely Transportation Engineer B's individual conduct?
Is Engineer A ethically obligated to refuse further submission of sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B for review — not merely to report the violation — and if so, does that refusal obligation persist even if it jeopardizes Engineer A's contract with the State Agency?
What is the threshold of knowledge required to trigger Engineer A's reporting obligation — is suspicion sufficient, or must Engineer A independently verify Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed and non-degreed status before reporting, and what due diligence steps are ethically required?
If “Transportation Engineer” B is practicing engineering, does Engineer A have an obligation to report “Transportation Engineer” B for the unlicensed practice?
Does the principle of Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority conflict with the practical reality that Engineer A depends on State Agency approval to complete contracted work — and how should Engineer A resolve the tension between protecting the integrity of sealed documents and maintaining the professional relationship necessary to serve the public through completed infrastructure projects?
Does the Unlicensed Practice Prohibition principle conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle in cases where Transportation Engineer B's review — though unlicensed — may have been technically competent and protective of public safety, and should demonstrated competence ever mitigate the ethical violation of practicing without a license?
Does the principle of Professional Title Integrity — which demands accurate representation of engineering credentials — conflict with the principle of Qualification Transparency when a state agency deliberately assigns engineering-implying titles to management staff, thereby placing Engineer A in the position of either accepting a misleading institutional framing or publicly challenging a government employer's personnel classification system?
Does the Licensure Integrity principle — which protects the profession systemically — conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle when Engineer A, by continuing to submit documents to the State Agency without immediately challenging the title misrepresentation, implicitly legitimizes the agency's misleading use of the 'Transportation Engineer' title and thereby contributes to profession-wide title integrity erosion?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to protect the public by continuing to submit sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B for review and approval without immediately challenging or reporting the unlicensed practice upon discovery?
From a consequentialist standpoint, does the systemic harm to public safety and the erosion of professional title integrity caused by state agencies assigning engineering titles to unlicensed, non-degreed personnel outweigh any administrative convenience or institutional efficiency those agencies might gain from the practice?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and courage expected of a licensed engineer by complying with Transportation Engineer B's directions to revise sealed contract documents before learning of the unlicensed status, and does that prior compliance reflect a deficit in the virtue of professional vigilance?
From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's duty not to aid or abet unlicensed practice impose an obligation on Engineer A that is triggered at the moment of discovery regardless of institutional hierarchy, meaning that Engineer A's duty to refuse further compliance with Transportation Engineer B's directions is absolute and not subject to weighing against professional or contractual consequences?
If Engineer A had proactively verified the licensure status of Transportation Engineer B before submitting the first set of sealed design documents, would Engineer A's ethical obligations have been triggered earlier, and would earlier discovery have prevented the retroactive problematization of prior compliance with unlicensed review directions?
What if Engineer A had refused to submit sealed design documents to the State Agency entirely upon discovering that Transportation Engineer B was neither licensed nor degreed — would that refusal have constituted a more ethically complete response than reporting alone, and could it have exposed Engineer A to breach-of-contract liability that the NSPE Code does not address?
If the State Agency had assigned Transportation Engineer B a non-engineering title such as 'Plan Review Manager' rather than 'Transportation Engineer,' would the same review and approval activities still have constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering under the state's licensing act, and would Engineer A's reporting obligation have been equally activated regardless of the misleading title?
If Engineer A had delayed reporting Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice — for example, by first attempting informal resolution with the State Agency manager — would that delay itself constitute aiding or abetting the unlicensed practice under NSPE Code Section II.1.e, and how does the precedent from BER Case 92-2 regarding timely correction of credential misrepresentation inform the permissible window for graduated escalation?
Regulatory Compliance State for Engineering Title Usage
Ongoing; applies whenever firms or agencies assign engineering-implying titles to personnel
Firms' and agencies' obligation to comply with state licensing act requirements governing use of 'engineer' in titles
Full compliance with state licensing act title requirements across all affected organizations
Licensing requirements are imposed upon highly skilled professional occupations such as medicine, law, and engineering.
State licensing acts codifying requirements for use of 'engineer' in titles (degree and/or licensure requirements)
State Agency Agency Title Misassignment Protest Constraint Instance - Systemic Engineering Title Practice
The State Agency's practice of assigning engineering-implying titles to management staff who do not hold PE licenses or engineering degrees is systemic, not limited to Transportation Engineer B alone. Engineer A's discovery of this practice triggers the obligation to protest and, if unresolved, report the systemic practice.
Engineer A, having discovered that the State Agency systematically assigns engineering-implying titles to non-licensed, non-degreed personnel including Transportation Engineer B, is constrained to raise that concern with appropriate agency leadership and, if unresolved, report the systemic practice to the relevant licensure authority or professional body, and is prohibited from passively acquiescing in the institutional title misassignment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.1.e, II.1.f, II.5.a; BER Case 95-10
Upon Engineer A's discovery of the State Agency's systemic title misassignment practice
State Agency Creative Engineering Title Misuse Prohibition Obligation Instance
The State Agency assigned the creative engineering title 'Transportation Engineer' to Engineer B, a non-licensed, non-degreed individual. The BER discussion specifically identifies creative engineering titles as a category of misrepresentation that the profession must not permit, even when industry and governmental agencies sometimes use such terms indiscriminately.
Creative Engineering Title Misuse Prohibition Obligation
The State Agency was obligated to refrain from using the creative engineering title 'Transportation Engineer' for Engineer B, who does not meet applicable state licensure and educational requirements, recognizing that such creative titles misrepresent qualifications and convey a false impression of professional competence to the public.
At the time of title assignment and throughout Engineer B's tenure in the titled position
State Agency Engineering Title Misassignment Prohibition Constraint
The State Agency has systematically assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to management staff — including Transportation Engineer B — who are neither licensed professional engineers nor degreed engineers, yet who exercise engineering review and approval authority over consulting engineers' sealed design documents.
The State Agency is prohibited under state licensing statutes and professional ethical norms from assigning the title 'Transportation Engineer' or any other engineering-implying title to management staff who do not hold professional engineering licenses or qualifying engineering degrees, as such title assignment creates a misleading impression of engineering authority and enables unlicensed practice.
State Engineering Licensure Laws Title Usage; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; BER Case 95-10
Ongoing; applies to all current and future title assignments within the agency
State Agency Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Deficit
The State Agency lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that assigning engineering titles — including 'Transportation Engineer' — to non-licensed, non-degreed staff constituted engineering title misrepresentation, and failed to identify the professional and legal obligations triggered by such misrepresentation.
The State Agency had a systemic practice of assigning engineering titles to management staff in positions requiring engineering review and approval authority, without ensuring those staff held the requisite licensure or educational qualifications.
The State Agency's systemic practice of assigning engineering titles to management staff who were neither licensed nor degreed engineers, and assigning those staff engineering review and approval authority over licensed engineers' sealed documents.
State Agency Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Obligation Instance
The State Agency assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to Engineer B, a non-licensed, non-degreed individual, who then performed engineering review functions including directing revisions to signed and sealed contract documents. This title assignment misrepresented Engineer B's qualifications to the public and to licensed engineers like Engineer A.
The State Agency was obligated to refrain from assigning the title 'Transportation Engineer' to Engineer B, who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering, and to correct this misrepresentation upon discovery, so that the public is not misled about the qualifications of individuals performing engineering review functions.
Use of the title, 'engineer,' conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice. 'Engineer' titles used by individuals working for state agencies tends to convey the impression that they are licensed professional engineers, which may cause confusion among the public.
State Agency Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Regarding Transportation Engineer B
The State Agency assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to individual B, who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering, and placed B in a management position with authority to review and direct revisions to licensed engineers' signed and sealed contract documents.
State Agency (and its administrative leadership)
The State Agency is obligated to refrain from assigning the title 'Transportation Engineer' or any other engineering title to staff members who are neither licensed nor degreed engineers, and to correct the existing misrepresentation of Transportation Engineer B's qualifications upon discovery.
Ongoing obligation; correction required upon discovery of the misrepresentation
Transportation Engineer B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes
State Agency Licensure System Integrity Preservation Obligation Instance
The State Agency's systematic practice of assigning engineering titles to non-licensed, non-degreed staff in positions with authority to review and direct revisions to signed and sealed engineering documents undermines the public protection function of engineering licensure and the ethical obligations that licensed engineers bear.
Licensure System Integrity Preservation Obligation
The State Agency was obligated to preserve the integrity of the engineering licensure system by refraining from allowing Engineer B to hold themselves out as an engineer without the associated ethical and legal obligations of a licensed professional engineer, recognizing that permitting such misrepresentation diminishes the profession and endangers public health, safety, and welfare.
Throughout the period during which Engineer B held the 'Transportation Engineer' title and performed engineering review functions
State Agency Misleading Engineering Title Assignment
Ongoing institutional practice persisting until the State Agency revises its titling practices or is compelled to do so by regulatory authority
Consulting engineers submitting documents for approval
State Agency's systematic assignment of the title 'Engineer' to management staff who do not hold professional engineering licenses or engineering degrees
Not yet terminated; persists as an institutional policy of the State Agency
Engineer A discovers that the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
State Agency Professional Title Usage Restriction Constraint Instance - Transportation Engineer B Title Assignment
The State Agency has assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to Engineer B, who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering. This title assignment conveys to the public and to consulting engineers like Engineer A that Engineer B holds engineering qualifications and authority that Engineer B does not possess.
The State Agency is prohibited from assigning the title 'Transportation Engineer' or any other engineering-implying title to Transportation Engineer B, who holds neither a professional engineering license nor an engineering degree, as such title assignment misrepresents qualifications and creates a misleading public impression of licensure status.
Ongoing throughout the State Agency's employment of Transportation Engineer B under an engineering-implying title
State Engineering Licensure Acts – Title Usage Provisions
BER in establishing the legal constraints on engineer title usage
Referenced as the legal framework specifying how and when the word 'engineer' can be used in a title, typically requiring a college degree and/or meeting licensing requirements
State Engineering Licensure and Practice Act
under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
Engineer A in assessing the legal status of Transportation Engineer B's activities
Establishes that Transportation Engineer B's activities — personally reviewing signed and sealed design documents, making comments, and directing changes — constitute the practice of engineering under state law, thereby triggering licensure requirements
Submit Sealed Design Documents (Action 1) → Unqualified Review Conducted (Event 2)
Transportation Engineer B Scope of Practice Violation Constraint
Transportation Engineer B, holding the title 'Transportation Engineer' but neither a PE license nor an engineering degree, has personally reviewed Engineer A's sealed contract documents, made comments, and directed changes — all of which constitute the practice of engineering under state law.
Transportation Engineer B is prohibited under state engineering practice law from performing acts constituting the practice of engineering — including personally reviewing signed and sealed design documents, making technical comments, and directing changes — without holding a professional engineering license or qualifying engineering degree.
State Engineering Practice Act; State Engineering Licensure Laws Title Usage
Ongoing; applies to all current and future engineering review activities performed by Transportation Engineer B
Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Violation
Transportation Engineer B, holding the title 'Transportation Engineer' at the State Agency, personally reviewed Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents, made comments, and directed changes, all of which constituted the practice of engineering under state law, despite being neither licensed nor degreed as an engineer.
Transportation Engineer B (non-licensed, non-degreed State Agency manager)
Transportation Engineer B is obligated to refrain from performing acts constituting the practice of engineering — including reviewing, commenting on, and directing revisions to signed and sealed engineering documents — without holding a valid engineering license as required by state law.
Ongoing; applicable to all past and future engineering review activities performed without licensure
Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Violation Recognition Deficit
Transportation Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that reviewing, commenting on, and directing changes to signed and sealed engineering contract documents constituted the practice of engineering under state law — activities that B was not qualified to perform without a professional engineering license or engineering degree.
Transportation Engineer B held an engineering-titled management position at the State Agency and performed engineering review and approval functions without the requisite licensure or educational qualifications.
Transportation Engineer B's performance of engineering review and direction activities on signed and sealed contract documents despite holding neither a professional engineering license nor an engineering degree.
'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering.
Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Practice of Engineering
From the time Engineer B began reviewing and approving consulting engineers' design documents through the present, persisting until corrected by the State Agency or regulatory action
Public relying on approved engineering documents
Transportation Engineer B personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
Transportation Engineer B exercising statutory approval authority over Engineer A's sealed design documents without holding a professional engineering license or engineering degree
Not yet terminated; persists until State Agency removes unlicensed staff from engineering approval roles or regulatory authority intervenes
Engineer A learns that Transportation Engineer B, who personally reviewed, commented on, and directed changes to Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents, is neither a licensed engineer nor a degreed engineer
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer B
Engineer B's review and direction of revisions to Engineer A's sealed documents
Engineer B's unlicensed agency plan reviewer role
Engineer A, having been directed by unlicensed Engineer B to revise signed and sealed contract documents, is obligated under NSPE Section II.1.e not to aid or abet unlicensed practice and under Section II.1.f to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies
Engineer B's act of reviewing sealed engineering documents and directing revisions constitutes the practice of engineering without a license; Engineer A's association with this conduct triggers both a non-participation obligation and an affirmative reporting obligation
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
The unlicensed practice prohibition is non-negotiable; Engineer A cannot defer to Engineer B's agency authority as justification for compliance with unlicensed direction
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A Against Transportation Engineer B
Transportation Engineer B's review and direction of changes to sealed engineering documents
Engineer A discovers that Transportation Engineer B, who directed revisions to Engineer A's signed and sealed documents, is neither licensed nor degreed, and the acts performed constitute the practice of engineering under state law, triggering Engineer A's obligation to challenge and report this unlicensed practice
In this context, the unlicensed practice prohibition requires Engineer A to refuse to treat B's directions as authoritative and to report the unlicensed practice to the state licensing board or other appropriate authority
The obligation to challenge unlicensed practice overrides any duty of deference to the agency as a client, because the unlicensed practice creates systemic public safety risk and violates state law
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation - State Licensing Board
State Licensing Board Rules Governing Reporting of Unlicensed Engineering Practice
Engineer A learns that 'Transportation Engineer' B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
Engineer A upon discovering Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed status
Establishes Engineer A's affirmative duty to report the discovery that Transportation Engineer B is performing the practice of engineering without a license to the relevant state licensing board or regulatory authority
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation for Engineer A
From the point Engineer A became aware of non-Engineer B's unlicensed review authority through reporting or resolution
Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…' and is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f).
Engineer A's awareness that non-Engineer B is engaging in unlicensed practice of engineering
Engineer A reports non-Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies, or non-Engineer B obtains licensure
Engineer A directed to revise sealed documents based on non-Engineer B's review, making Engineer A aware of unlicensed practice
Professional Norms Governing Reporting of Unlicensed Engineering Practice
BER in determining Engineer A's reporting obligations
Applied to establish Engineer A's duty to report Engineer B's unlicensed practice to appropriate professional bodies and to refrain from aiding or abetting such unlawful practice
Unsupervised Unlicensed Practice Public Safety Harm Constraint Instance - Transportation Engineer B Review Authority
Transportation Engineer B, who is neither licensed nor degreed in engineering, has been exercising engineering review authority over Engineer A's sealed contract documents without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer, creating the specific public safety harm that the licensure system is designed to prevent.
State Agency and Transportation Engineer B
Unsupervised Unlicensed Engineering Practice Public Safety Harm Constraint
The State Agency and Transportation Engineer B are constrained from permitting Transportation Engineer B to perform engineering review services — including reviewing sealed contract documents and directing revisions — without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer, as such unsupervised unlicensed practice creates specific harm to public health, safety, and welfare.
NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Practice Act; BER Case 95-10
Throughout Transportation Engineer B's exercise of engineering review authority over sealed contract documents