ProEthica Case 60 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.075275
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Attorney X contacting Engineer A before Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert... Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case
from entity text: Attorney X contacting Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519489
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 04-11 Business Card
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 04-11
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 04-11, four different self-designation situations were evaluated
textreferences: Case 04-11, situation (3) clearly contemplates that engineers who qualify as experts in non-engineering areas may provide those non-engineering services in jurisdictions in which they are not licensed
textreferences: in BER Case 04-11, four different self-designation situations were evaluated
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's provision of expert services in State M
usedincontext: Cited as precedent addressing permissible self-designation on business cards across jurisdictions, including the scenario where an engineer provides non-engineering consulting in a state where not licensed
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.256925
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 04-11 Situation 1 Engineer
type: Multi-StateLicensedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed in States B, C, and D', 'issue': 'Business card lacked physical address, creating confusion about licensure in State E'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer licensed in States B, C, and D distributed business cards at a meeting in State E with no physical address listed, creating confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure status. The BER found this unacceptable.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: medium
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Multi-State Licensed Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E. The business card states NO physical address.
textreferences: Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E. The business card states NO physical address.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.258386
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 04-11 before BER Case 19-3
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Cases are numbered sequentially by year prefix: 04-11 (circa 2004) precedes 19-3 (circa 2019)
from entity text: BER Case 04-11
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 19-3
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 19-3
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519280
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 19-3 Forensic Expert Conflict
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 19-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 19-3, Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee
textreferences: in BER Case 19-3, Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
usedby: BER in contextualizing Engineer A's forensic engineering expert role
usedincontext: Cited as precedent addressing disclosure obligations and conflict of interest considerations when forensic engineers serve as opposing expert witnesses while sharing membership in a technical standards committee
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.257203
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 19-3 before BER Case 20-1
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Cases are numbered sequentially by year prefix: 19-3 (circa 2019) precedes 20-1 (circa 2020)
from entity text: BER Case 19-3
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 20-1
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 20-1
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519348
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 20-1 PE Exam Disclosure
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 20-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 20-1, Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures
textreferences: in BER Case 20-1, Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures
textreferences: the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical
usedby: BER in contextualizing disclosure obligations relevant to Engineer A's case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent addressing the materiality of omissions in disclosure contexts, specifically whether failure to disclose prior PE exam failures constitutes an unethical omission
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.257463
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 20-1 before present case involving Engineer A
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The Discussion references Cases 95-10, 04-11, 19-3, and 20-1 as prior precedents before 'Turning to the facts of the present situation'
from entity text: BER Case 20-1
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: present case involving Engineer A
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: present case involving Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519418
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 95-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 95-10 Title Use
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 95-10, ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed
textreferences: In accordance with the findings of Case 95-10, incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
textreferences: in BER Case 95-10, ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's use of the Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that using the title 'Engineer' or 'Design Engineer' without licensure or qualifying credentials is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.256597
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 95-10 before BER Case 04-11
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Cases are numbered sequentially by year prefix: 95-10 (circa 1995) precedes 04-11 (circa 2004)
from entity text: BER Case 95-10
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 04-11
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 04-11
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519210
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Board-certified Diplomate Forensic Engineering Credential
type: ForensicEngineeringCredentialStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Academy of Forensic Engineers or equivalent credentialing body
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering Credentialing Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
textreferences: Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
textreferences: Engineer A is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
usedby: Engineer A in signing the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.'
usedincontext: Engineer A holds this credential and uses it as the sole professional designation on the expert report, omitting any reference to licensure status. The credential's use raises questions about whether it adequately represents or obscures the engineer's jurisdictional licensure standing.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.254783
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 04-11 Situation 1 Business Card Clarity
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineer failed to exercise the capability to ensure business cards provided sufficient licensure clarity, distributing cards with no physical address in State E where no license was held.
casecontext: BER Case 04-11 Situation 1: Engineer licensed in States B, C, and D distributed business cards at a meeting in State E with no physical address, which the BER found unacceptable.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Distribution of business cards lacking a physical address at a meeting in State E, creating confusion about licensure status.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: BER Case 04-11 Situation 1 Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure
textreferences: the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.515890
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 04-11 Situation 1 No Address Card
type: BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the business meeting in State E where the cards were distributed
affectedparties: Engineer
affectedparties: recipients of the business card in State E
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E. The business card states NO physical address. The BER found this to be unacceptable
stateclass: Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State
subject: Engineer licensed in States B, C, and D distributing business cards with no physical address at a meeting in State E
terminatedby: BER finding that the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception
textreferences: Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E. The business card states NO physical address. The BER found this to be unacceptable
triggeringevent: Engineer distributed business cards with no physical address in a state where the engineer held no license
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.262095
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 04-11 Situation 2 Address Unlicensed State Card
type: BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the period the business card was in use
affectedparties: Engineer
affectedparties: recipients of the business card
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer's business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineer's business address is in another state, one in which no license is held. Clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved
stateclass: Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State
subject: Engineer whose business card clearly identifies licensed states and lists an address in a state where no license is held
terminatedby: BER finding that clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved
textreferences: Engineer's business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineer's business address is in another state, one in which no license is held. Clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved
triggeringevent: Engineer distributed a business card listing an address in a state where no license was held, alongside clear identification of the states of licensure
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.262707
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 04-11 Situation 2 Business Card Clarity
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineer demonstrated the capability to ensure business cards clearly conveyed licensure states and distinguished the business address state from licensed states.
casecontext: BER Case 04-11 Situation 2: Engineer's business card clearly identified licensed states and noted the business address was in a state where no license was held, satisfying ethical requirements.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Business card clearly identifying states of licensure and noting that the business address state was not a state of licensure.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: BER Case 04-11 Situation 2 Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer's business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineer's business address is in another state, one in which no license is held
textreferences: Clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved
textreferences: Engineer's business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineer's business address is in another state, one in which no license is held
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.516206
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 04-11 Situation 3 Business Card Clarity
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineer demonstrated the capability to ensure business cards clearly stated the state of licensure when the address state differed from the licensure state, preserving ethical conformity.
casecontext: BER Case 04-11 Situation 3: Engineer with address in State B but licensed only in State C performed engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B, with business card providing clear licensure information.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Business card stating address in State B but licensure only in State C, with clear distinction between the two.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: BER Case 04-11 Situation 3 Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer's business card has an address in State B, but states that Engineer is licensed only in State C
textreferences: Clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved
textreferences: Engineer's business card has an address in State B, but states that Engineer is licensed only in State C
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.516513
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 60 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 3
event count: 5
total elements: 8
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520263
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

CausalLink_Credential Title Selection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527649
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

CausalLink_Expert Engagement Acceptance
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527418
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

CausalLink_PE Designation Omission
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527498
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 402
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Provided that Engineer A qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications, Engineer A’s self-presentation as a consultant-expert without identifying status as a licensed professional engineer was not unethical.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.523456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's self-presentation as a non-engineering consultant was conditionally permissible, the Board's reasoning leaves unresolved a foundational threshold question: who bears the burden of verifying that the engagement is genuinely non-engineering in nature. The Board implicitly places that burden on Engineer A, yet provides no framework for how an engineer should document or demonstrate that the work performed falls outside the statutory definition of engineering practice in State M. Without such a framework, the conditional compliance finding creates an exploitable gap — any engineer unlicensed in a jurisdiction could recharacterize their work as non-engineering consulting to avoid licensure requirements, undermining the legislative intent of State M's expert testimony statute. The NSPE Code's paramount obligation to protect public welfare, combined with the honesty provisions, suggests that Engineer A bore an affirmative duty not merely to avoid engineering practice but to proactively verify and document that the scope of the engagement did not cross into engineering territory under State M's specific statutory definitions before accepting the engagement.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.523784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conditional approval of Engineer A's non-engineering engagement, read alongside its finding that the forensic diplomate credential triggered an ethics violation, creates a structural asymmetry that the Board did not fully address: the same report simultaneously contains a permissible role description and an impermissible credential title. This internal inconsistency within a single document is more ethically significant than the Board acknowledged. A court receiving the report would encounter a signature block that, taken as a whole, signals engineering expertise through the diplomate credential while the role framing attempts to disclaim engineering practice. The net communicative effect of the complete signature block — not merely its individual components — is what matters for purposes of the honesty and misrepresentation provisions of the NSPE Code. The Board should have analyzed whether the combination of a non-engineering consultant role label and a forensic engineering credential in the same signature block constitutes a materially misleading presentation even if each element, viewed in isolation, might be defensible. The omission of this holistic analysis leaves practitioners without clear guidance on how to construct credential disclosures in multi-jurisdictional expert engagements.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.523958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that omitting the PE designation was not unethical, provided the non-engineering framing was genuine, implicitly endorses a form of strategic credential suppression that warrants further scrutiny. While the Board correctly distinguishes between falsely claiming a credential and simply not asserting one, the NSPE Code's honesty provisions — particularly the prohibition on statements containing material omissions that create misleading impressions — suggest that silence about licensure status in a jurisdiction with an explicit expert testimony licensure statute may itself constitute a material omission. In the context of litigation, where the court and opposing counsel rely on the expert's disclosure to assess qualifications and challenge admissibility, the omission of unlicensed status in State M is not a neutral act. It deprives the tribunal of information that is directly relevant to the legal admissibility of the testimony and the weight to be accorded it. A more complete ethical analysis would recognize that the duty of candor owed to the public and to the integrity of the judicial process — values embedded in the Code's paramount public welfare obligation — requires affirmative disclosure of jurisdictional unlicensed status when a licensing statute explicitly conditions expert testimony on licensure, regardless of how the engagement is scoped.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.524134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's finding that use of the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential was unethical because it triggered State M's licensure requirement extends logically to a duty of pre-engagement investigation that the Board did not articulate. Engineer A possessed the forensic diplomate credential before accepting the engagement and before signing the report. The moment Engineer A agreed to evaluate the case and provide testimony in State M, Engineer A was obligated to investigate whether any credential Engineer A might use in that jurisdiction — including credentials Engineer A routinely employs in other jurisdictions — would independently invoke State M's licensure statute. The ethics violation was therefore not merely a product of the report signature; it was incipient at the moment of engagement acceptance, because Engineer A's credential portfolio made it foreseeable that any professionally accurate self-identification would trigger the licensure requirement. This analysis suggests that the ethics violation identified by the Board in conclusion two should be traced back to the engagement acceptance event, not merely to the report signature event, and that Engineer A's obligation to decline the engagement or obtain State M licensure arose at that earlier point.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.524296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that use of the forensic diplomate credential was unethical raises a further question about the role of Attorney X that the Board did not address but that has systemic implications for engineering ethics. Attorney X specifically sought a non-engineering expert, which implies awareness of State M's licensure requirement and a deliberate effort to structure the engagement to circumvent it. If Attorney X knew or should have known that Engineer A held a forensic engineering credential that would trigger the licensure statute, then Attorney X's structuring of the engagement as non-engineering consulting may itself have been an attempt to use Engineer A as a vehicle for evading a statutory requirement. While the NSPE Code does not directly govern Attorney X's conduct, it does impose on Engineer A an obligation to avoid being complicit in arrangements that undermine public protection statutes. Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement without independently verifying whether the forensic diplomate credential would trigger State M's statute — and without disclosing the credential's existence to Attorney X in the context of the licensure question — reflects a failure to exercise the professional independence that the Code requires engineers to maintain even when serving as retained experts for legal counsel.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.524469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's two conclusions together reveal an unresolved tension regarding what a fully compliant alternative would have looked like, and the Board's silence on this point leaves engineers without actionable guidance. The counterfactual of Engineer A signing the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, PE (licensed in States C, D, and E; not licensed in State M)' would have satisfied the honesty and non-misrepresentation provisions by fully disclosing both the credential and the jurisdictional gap. However, it remains unclear under the Board's analysis whether such a disclosure would have resolved the underlying licensure violation — that is, whether full transparency about unlicensed status cures the ethics problem or merely mitigates it. The Board's framework implies that the ethics violation flows from the misleading impression created by the credential, not from the unlicensed practice itself (which is a legal rather than purely ethical question). If that is correct, then affirmative disclosure of unlicensed status alongside the credential would likely satisfy the Code's honesty requirements, even if it did not resolve any independent legal question about whether the testimony was admissible under State M's statute. The Board should have articulated this distinction explicitly, as it has significant practical consequences for engineers navigating multi-jurisdictional expert engagements.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.524625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 402
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: However, when Engineer A claimed status as a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A’s self-presentation became unethical.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.523608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Attorney X bears a meaningful share of ethical and procedural responsibility for knowingly structuring an engagement in a jurisdiction with an explicit expert testimony licensure requirement without verifying that Engineer A held State M licensure. While the NSPE Code of Ethics does not directly govern Attorney X's conduct, the attorney's deliberate framing of the retention as 'non-engineering' to circumvent State M's statute raises serious questions about candor to the tribunal. Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement without proactively disclosing the licensure gap to the court and opposing counsel compounds this problem. Code provision III.3.a, which prohibits material omissions that create misleading impressions, applies squarely to Engineer A's silence on licensure status in a jurisdiction where that status is legally material. The combined effect of Attorney X's structuring and Engineer A's omission created a condition in which the court lacked information necessary to assess the admissibility and weight of the expert testimony, implicating both the integrity of the judicial process and the public welfare obligation under Code provision I.1.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.524792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A bore an affirmative obligation to investigate whether any credential appearing in the report signature block would independently trigger State M's licensure requirement before signing the report. The Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential is not a generic professional title; it is a domain-specific credential that explicitly signals engineering expertise in forensic contexts. A reasonably prudent engineer accepting an engagement in a jurisdiction with a known expert testimony licensure statute should have recognized that appending a forensic engineering credential to a signature block in that jurisdiction would foreseeably be interpreted as a claim of engineering authority. Code provision II.5.a, which prohibits permitting misrepresentation of qualifications, requires not merely avoiding affirmative falsehoods but also avoiding credential presentations that create false impressions about the scope of one's licensed authority. Engineer A's failure to investigate the credential's jurisdictional implications before signing constitutes a breach of the obligation of jurisdictional licensure verification and the broader duty of credential representation accuracy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.524939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The Board's conditional approval of the non-engineering engagement creates a structurally perverse incentive: engineers who lack licensure in a jurisdiction may strategically suppress their PE designation in expert reports to avoid triggering licensure requirements, while still leveraging their engineering training and reputation to enhance their credibility as experts. This 'credential-stripping' dynamic undermines the legislative intent of statutes like State M's expert testimony licensure requirement, which exist precisely to ensure that courts can assess the regulated authority behind expert opinions. Without systemic safeguards — such as a Code provision requiring engineers acting as expert witnesses to affirmatively disclose all jurisdictions in which they hold licensure and, critically, any jurisdiction relevant to the engagement in which they do not — the Board's framework inadvertently licenses a form of strategic credential management that is inconsistent with the honesty and transparency obligations in Code provisions II.5.a and III.3.a. The NSPE should consider adopting explicit guidance requiring affirmative licensure disclosure in expert witness contexts.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.525130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The court and opposing counsel in State M were materially harmed by Engineer A's omission of licensure status. The State M expert testimony licensure statute exists to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings by ensuring that engineering opinions offered to courts carry the accountability and competency assurance that licensure provides. When Engineer A signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing unlicensed status in State M, the court was deprived of information necessary to evaluate whether the testimony was admissible under the applicable statute and whether the expert's authority was properly bounded. Opposing counsel was similarly deprived of a basis to challenge the expert's qualifications on licensure grounds at the outset. Code provision III.3.a's prohibition on material omissions that create misleading impressions is directly implicated. The NSPE Code should be strengthened to require engineers serving as expert witnesses to affirmatively disclose, in their report signature block or a separate qualification statement, the jurisdictions in which they hold licensure and any jurisdiction relevant to the engagement where licensure is absent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.525282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: There is a genuine and unresolved tension between the Board's conditional approval of Engineer A's non-engineering engagement and the principle that Engineer A's forensic diplomate credential independently triggers State M's licensure requirement. The Board's framework allows an engineer to reframe their role as non-engineering to avoid licensure obligations, yet simultaneously holds that any engineering-domain credential used in that same report reactivates those obligations. This creates an internal inconsistency: the non-engineering recharacterization is only ethically permissible if the engineer also strips all engineering credentials from the report — but doing so may itself constitute a misleading omission about the expert's actual qualifications and the nature of the work performed. The two principles cannot be simultaneously satisfied without either misrepresenting the scope of the engagement or misrepresenting the expert's qualifications. This tension suggests the Board's framework is structurally incomplete and that the more coherent resolution would be to require full credential and licensure disclosure rather than permitting selective credential suppression as a compliance mechanism.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.525432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The Board's framework creates an asymmetry that is difficult to justify on principled grounds: omitting the PE designation is treated as partially compliant, while including the forensic diplomate credential is treated as a violation — yet both choices affect the court's ability to accurately assess Engineer A's qualifications. The forensic diplomate credential implies engineering expertise; the PE designation would have confirmed licensed engineering authority in other jurisdictions. Omitting the PE designation while retaining the forensic diplomate title produces a credential presentation that is simultaneously over-inclusive (implying engineering authority through the diplomate title) and under-inclusive (concealing the licensed jurisdictions that would contextualize that authority). Code provision II.5.a's prohibition on permitting misrepresentation of qualifications applies to both the false impression created by the forensic diplomate title and the incomplete picture created by omitting PE licensure status. The Board's asymmetric treatment of these two credential choices does not resolve the underlying honesty problem; it merely identifies one of two compounding misrepresentations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.525583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed the duty of honest credential representation. Deontological ethics requires that representations be truthful not merely in their literal content but in the impression they are reasonably calculated to convey. Omitting the PE designation while retaining the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title satisfies the letter of avoiding a false claim of State M licensure, but it violates the spirit of honest representation by deploying an engineering-domain credential that signals engineering authority to a court that cannot verify whether that authority is jurisdictionally valid. The duty of candor — grounded in Code provisions II.5.a and III.3.a — is not discharged by strategic omission. A deontological analysis would require Engineer A to either fully disclose all relevant credential and licensure information, including the absence of State M licensure, or decline the engagement entirely. The selective credential presentation Engineer A employed is precisely the kind of technically-non-false-but-materially-misleading conduct that deontological ethics is designed to prohibit.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.525735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A bears a categorical duty to disclose unlicensed status in State M to the court and opposing parties, independent of how the engagement was scoped. The duty arises not from the engineering nature of the work but from the existence of a legal requirement — State M's expert testimony licensure statute — that is directly material to the admissibility and weight of the testimony. Deontological ethics holds that duties of disclosure are triggered by the materiality of the information to the parties who rely on it, not by the professional's self-characterization of their role. The court and opposing counsel are entitled to know whether the expert's testimony complies with applicable law. Engineer A's silence on this point, regardless of whether the work was engineering or non-engineering in nature, constitutes a failure of the categorical duty of candor to the tribunal and the public, as reflected in Code provision I.1's paramount obligation to protect public welfare.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.525915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's credential presentation produced net harm to the integrity of the judicial process and public trust in engineering expertise. The court was deprived of information necessary to assess admissibility; opposing counsel was deprived of a basis for a timely licensure challenge; and the public interest in having engineering testimony in courts subject to licensure accountability was undermined. Even if Engineer A's technical analysis was competent and accurate, the consequentialist calculus must account for the systemic harms of normalizing credential presentations that obscure jurisdictional limitations. If engineers routinely suppress licensure information in expert reports to avoid admissibility challenges, the cumulative effect is an erosion of the licensure system's function as a quality and accountability mechanism in judicial proceedings. Code provision I.1's paramount obligation to protect public safety, health, and welfare encompasses the integrity of the institutions — including courts — through which public welfare is adjudicated.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.526069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer A's credential selection strategy reflects a failure of professional integrity. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not merely by its outcomes or rule compliance but by whether it reflects the character of a person of genuine professional integrity. An engineer of good character, aware of a jurisdictional licensure gap, would not respond by selecting a credential title that avoids the explicit PE designation while still leveraging an engineering-domain credential to enhance perceived authority. That strategy is calculated rather than candid — it is designed to extract the reputational benefit of engineering expertise while avoiding the legal accountability that licensure imposes. The virtue of honesty, as reflected in Code provisions II.5.a and III.3.a, requires not merely avoiding literal falsehoods but actively ensuring that one's professional representations convey an accurate and complete picture of one's qualifications and their jurisdictional limits. Engineer A's conduct falls short of this standard.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.526223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: A signature block reading 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, PE (licensed in States C, D, and E, not licensed in State M)' would represent the most ethically defensible presentation available to Engineer A under the circumstances. Such a disclosure would satisfy Code provisions II.5.a and III.3.a by providing the court with a complete and accurate picture of Engineer A's credentials and their jurisdictional scope. It would also allow the court and opposing counsel to assess whether the engagement complied with State M's expert testimony licensure statute. Whether such a disclosure would render the testimony admissible under State M law is a legal question beyond the NSPE Code's scope, but from an ethics standpoint, full disclosure is clearly preferable to selective credential presentation. The Board's conclusion that the forensic diplomate title was unethical implicitly supports this reading: the violation arose from the credential's misleading implication of unlicensed engineering authority, which full disclosure would have corrected.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.526379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer A had signed the report solely as 'Consultant A' with no engineering-related title, the engagement would have been more likely to remain ethically permissible under the Board's framework, provided the work was genuinely non-engineering in nature. The Board's first conclusion establishes that a non-engineering expert engagement in State M is not inherently unethical for an unlicensed engineer, and the second conclusion identifies the forensic diplomate credential as the specific trigger for the ethics violation. Removing all engineering-domain credentials from the signature block would eliminate the misrepresentation identified by the Board. However, this resolution is not without residual ethical concern: signing as 'Consultant A' without any credential disclosure may itself create a misleading impression by concealing the engineering background that likely informed the analysis. Code provision III.3.a's prohibition on material omissions suggests that complete credential suppression, while avoiding the specific violation identified by the Board, may not fully satisfy the broader honesty obligations of the NSPE Code.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.526516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Even if Attorney X had been fully informed of Engineer A's unlicensed status in State M and had explicitly structured the engagement to avoid engineering practice, this would not fully discharge Engineer A's independent ethical obligations under the NSPE Code. The Code imposes personal duties on engineers that cannot be delegated to or waived by retaining counsel. Engineer A's obligation to accurately represent credentials, to avoid material omissions in professional representations, and to protect public welfare are not contingent on the attorney's knowledge or structuring decisions. Attorney X's informed structuring might shift some legal and professional responsibility for scope compliance, and it might reduce the culpability attributable to Engineer A for accepting the engagement, but it would not eliminate Engineer A's independent duty to ensure that the report signature block accurately represented qualifications and jurisdictional limitations. The ethical violation identified by the Board — use of the forensic diplomate credential in a misleading context — would persist regardless of Attorney X's awareness, because the misleading impression is created in the report itself, which is directed at the court, not at Attorney X.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.526675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: If State M's licensing statute had contained an explicit exemption for Board-certified forensic engineering diplomates testifying as expert witnesses, the ethical analysis would shift substantially. In that hypothetical, the forensic diplomate credential would not merely be permissible in the signature block — it would be affirmatively required to invoke the statutory exemption and establish the legal basis for the testimony's admissibility. Omitting the credential in that scenario could itself constitute a material omission under Code provision III.3.a, because the court and opposing counsel would need to know the basis for the exemption claim. This counterfactual illustrates that the ethical valence of credential disclosure is context-dependent: the same credential that constitutes a misleading representation in the actual case would constitute a required disclosure in the hypothetical. The Board's conclusion that the forensic diplomate title was unethical is therefore not a categorical rule against using that credential in expert reports, but a context-specific finding that its use in State M, without licensure and without a statutory exemption, created a misleading impression of jurisdictional authority.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.526859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 203
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Permissibility and Engineer A Credential Triggers State M Licensure was only partially resolved by the Board, and the resolution is structurally unstable. The Board conditionally approved the non-engineering engagement on the premise that Engineer A could legitimately reframe the scope of work to avoid triggering State M's licensure statute. However, the moment Engineer A appended the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential to the report signature, that recharacterization collapsed: the credential itself signals engineering expertise and domain authority, directly contradicting the claim that the work was non-engineering in nature. The Board resolved the tension by treating the two principles as sequentially operative — permissibility first, credential use second — but this sequencing obscures the fact that the credential and the scope characterization are evaluated by the court simultaneously. The practical lesson is that these two principles cannot be cleanly separated in a litigation context: a credential title is not merely a biographical fact appended after the work is done, but an active representation about the nature and authority of the work itself. When the credential implies engineering expertise, it retroactively recharacterizes the engagement as engineering regardless of how the scope was originally framed.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A Honesty Credential Omission and Engineer A PE Designation Omission Partial Compliance reveals a significant asymmetry in the Board's ethical framework: omitting the PE designation is treated as permissible or even prudent, while including the forensic diplomate credential is treated as a violation. Yet both choices affect the court's ability to accurately assess Engineer A's qualifications. This asymmetry is only coherent if the Board's underlying principle is that engineers must avoid affirmative misrepresentation but bear no general duty of affirmative disclosure regarding credentials or licensure gaps. That reading, however, sits in tension with Code provision III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing material omissions that create a misleading impression. A signature block that presents a forensic engineering credential while omitting both the PE designation and the absence of State M licensure is not merely silent — it is selectively informative in a way that a reasonable reader would find misleading. The Board's partial compliance finding therefore resolves the tension in favor of a narrow anti-misrepresentation norm rather than a broader duty of candor, but does not adequately account for the cumulative misleading effect of strategic omission combined with credential invocation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction among Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M, Engineer A Non-Engineering Engagement Permissibility, and Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Credential Use teaches a broader lesson about principle prioritization in jurisdictional ethics cases: when a legislative mandate — here, State M's expert testimony licensure statute — establishes a bright-line rule, ethical principles that might otherwise permit flexibility in scope characterization must yield to that mandate rather than be used to circumvent it. The Board's framework implicitly prioritizes the non-engineering permissibility principle as a threshold escape valve, but this prioritization is only defensible if the engineer's conduct is genuinely and verifiably non-engineering in both substance and presentation. Because Engineer A's credential use undermined the non-engineering characterization at the point of public presentation, the jurisdictional licensure principle should have been treated as dominant from the outset. This case therefore teaches that when an engineer operates in a jurisdiction with an explicit licensure requirement for expert testimony, the burden of demonstrating that the engagement falls outside that requirement must be met not only in the internal scope agreement with retaining counsel but also in every public-facing representation made in connection with the engagement — including the report signature block.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Credential Title Selection
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer and Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: The credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' inherently requires P.E. licensure, so its use effectively signals engineering status to any informed reader
foreseen unintended effects: Use of the word 'Engineering' in the title could bring Engineer A under State M's licensing statute regardless of the omission of 'P.E.'
fulfills obligation text: Attempted partial compliance with State M licensing statute by omitting P.E. designation
fulfills obligation text: Attempted to present legitimate, earned professional credentials
guided by principle text: Avoidance of deceptive acts or misrepresentation of credentials
guided by principle text: Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
guided by principle text: Truthful and complete public statements about qualifications
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Establish credibility as a qualified forensic expert while avoiding explicit P.E. designation, believing this approach satisfied both the need to present qualifications and the requirement to avoid unlicensed engineering practice in State M
requires capability text: Ability to identify when a credential implicitly claims engineering status
requires capability text: Legal judgment about jurisdictional scope of licensing requirements
requires capability text: Understanding of how credential titles interact with state licensing statutes
temporal marker: At report signing, after case evaluation was complete
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: Duty not to use engineering titles or credentials in jurisdictions where the underlying licensure requirement is not met, as established by BER Case 95-10
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid acts that constitute unlicensed practice of engineering
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid deceptive acts, since the credential implies P.E. licensure that Engineer A did not hold in State M
violates obligation text: Duty to comply with State M licensing statute, which covers any engineer providing testimony
within competence: false
comment: Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' incorporating the word 'Engineering' in the title while omitting the P.E. designation, in a state where Engineer A held no engineering license.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518745
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Credential Title Selection → Ethics Violation Concluded
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' a title selection the BER analysis concludes constituted misleading use of the 'Forensic Engineering' designation in violation of NSPE Code provisions governing honest representation
cause: Credential Title Selection
counterfactual: Had Engineer A used a title that accurately reflected non-PE status in State M and avoided implying licensed forensic engineering practice, the ethics violation on credential misrepresentation grounds would likely not have been concluded
effect: Ethics Violation Concluded
necessary factors: BER's interpretive authority to evaluate credential title ethics
necessary factors: Engineer A's active selection of a credential title incorporating 'Forensic Engineering'
necessary factors: Prior BER precedent (Cases 95-10, 04-11, 19-3, 20-1) establishing standards for permissible credential titles
necessary factors: State M's licensure requirement rendering the title contextually misleading
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Combination of misleading title selection + established BER precedent prohibiting such usage + context of unlicensed State M practice
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519047
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A verify State M licensure requirements and assess whether the engagement is substantively engineering work before accepting the retainer from Attorney X?
focus: Engineer A is approached by Attorney X to serve as a non-engineering expert witness in a State M proceeding. Engineer A holds a valid PE license in another jurisdiction but not in State M. Before accepting, Engineer A must determine whether State M requires a PE license for the type of expert testimony contemplated, and whether the engagement as framed by Attorney X is genuinely non-engineering or is substantively engineering expert testimony recharacterized to avoid licensure requirements.
option1: Before accepting, Engineer A independently researches State M's licensure statute, determines whether the contemplated testimony constitutes engineering practice under State M law, and declines or obtains licensure if required.
option2: Engineer A relies on Attorney X's characterization that the engagement is non-engineering consulting and accepts without independently verifying State M licensure requirements.
option3: Engineer A declines the engagement on the grounds that the jurisdictional licensure status is uncertain and the risk of unlicensed practice cannot be resolved without significant delay.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077666
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A refrain from using the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential in the State M expert report signature, given that Engineer A holds no State M PE license?
focus: Having accepted the engagement, Engineer A must decide how to sign the expert report. Engineer A holds the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential, which incorporates engineering terminology and requires the holder to be a licensed PE. Engineer A does not hold a State M PE license. Engineer A must choose whether to use that credential in the report signature block, use a neutral consultant designation, or disclose the jurisdictional licensure limitation alongside the credential.
option1: Engineer A signs the report solely as 'Consultant A' or uses a non-engineering credential designation, avoiding any title that incorporates engineering terminology and thereby avoiding triggering State M's licensure statute.
option2: Engineer A signs as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing the absence of a State M PE license, as was done in the case, on the theory that the non-engineering framing of the engagement makes the credential merely descriptive.
option3: Engineer A uses the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential but adds an explicit notation that Engineer A is not licensed as a PE in State M and is providing services solely as a non-engineering consultant.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077826
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Does omitting the PE designation from the report signature satisfy Engineer A's credential representation accuracy obligations, or must Engineer A also remove the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential?
focus: Engineer A omitted the PE designation from the report signature block, apparently as a measure to signal that the report was not being submitted under a State M PE license. However, the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential was retained in the signature. Engineer A must assess whether omitting PE while retaining the Forensic Engineering diplomate title is sufficient to satisfy credential representation accuracy obligations, or whether the omission creates a misleading partial disclosure.
option1: Engineer A removes both the PE designation and the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title from the signature block, signing only as 'Consultant A' to ensure no engineering terminology appears that could trigger State M's licensure statute or mislead the court about Engineer A's jurisdictional authority.
option2: Engineer A retains the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential as a description of national certification while omitting the PE designation, treating the omission of PE as sufficient to signal the non-licensure context, as was done in the case.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077965
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Must Engineer A independently assess whether the substantive scope of the expert engagement constitutes engineering practice under State M law, rather than accepting Attorney X's non-engineering characterization?
focus: Engineer A is presented with an engagement that Attorney X has characterized as non-engineering expert consulting in order to avoid State M's licensure requirement. Engineer A must decide whether to independently assess whether the substantive work, preparing an expert opinion on engineering-related matters for a State M court, constitutes engineering practice under State M law regardless of how the engagement is labeled, and whether to decline or seek licensure if it does.
option1: Engineer A analyzes the actual work product required, including the nature of the opinions to be rendered and the technical methodology to be applied, against State M's statutory definition of engineering practice, and declines or obtains licensure if the work is substantively engineering regardless of its contractual label.
option2: Engineer A accepts Attorney X's characterization that the engagement is non-engineering consulting and proceeds on the basis that the contractual framing controls the regulatory classification of the work.
option3: Engineer A retains independent legal counsel in State M to obtain a formal opinion on whether the contemplated expert services constitute engineering practice under State M law before proceeding.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.078155
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ENGCO Personnel Engineer Title Use
type: EngineeringTitleCredentialAccuracyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: ENGCO used Engineer and Design Engineer titles for personnel in sale materials consistent with federal agency contract terminology, but those personnel lacked licensure and engineering education. BER Case 95-10 found this likely violated the Code's requirements on truthful public statements, avoidance of deceptive acts, and prohibition on falsifying qualifications.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: ENGCO
constraintclass: Engineering Title Credential Accuracy Constraint
constraintstatement: ENGCO was prohibited from referring to key personnel as Engineer or Design Engineer in sale materials when those personnel were not licensed engineers, did not hold engineering degrees, and did not hold college degrees of any kind, because such references falsified or misrepresented the qualifications of those personnel.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:39.135187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:39.135187+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 95-10
sourcetext: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
temporalscope: At the time of distribution of sale materials referencing personnel titles
textreferences: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
textreferences: using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.514000
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ENGCO Personnel Title Entitlement
type: EngineeringTitleEntitlementAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Title Entitlement Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: ENGCO lacked or failed to exercise the capability to assess whether key personnel were entitled to the titles Engineer and Design Engineer, resulting in use of those titles for unlicensed, non-degreed personnel.
casecontext: BER Case 95-10: ENGCO referred to key personnel as Engineer and Design Engineer in sale materials when those personnel were not licensed and did not hold engineering or any college degrees.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to assess entitlement before using engineering titles in sale materials, prompting BER inquiry in Case 95-10.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: ENGCO
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
textreferences: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
textreferences: using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.515510
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Credential Disclosure Report
type: CredentialDisclosureAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Credential Disclosure Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to accurately and completely represent licensure status in the signed expert report, including disclosing that Engineer A was not licensed in State M, but failed to do so.
casecontext: Engineer A signed the expert report using only a forensic certification credential, omitting any reference to licensure status or the absence of State M licensure.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Signing the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' with no reference to licensure status, omitting the material fact of non-licensure in State M.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.267482
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Credential Representation Accuracy
type: CredentialDisclosureAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Credential Disclosure Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to accurately represent credentials in the signed expert report, omitting disclosure that Engineer A was not licensed in State M while simultaneously using a credential that implied State M licensure compliance.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A signed the expert report as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in State M without disclosing the absence of a State M engineering license.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Signing the expert report with the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential without disclosing the absence of State M licensure.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Non-Engineering Consultant State M
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report. Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
textreferences: Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report. Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518448
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Witness Role Boundary
type: ExpertWitnessRoleBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Role Boundary Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to identify and observe the jurisdictional, ethical, and professional boundaries governing expert witness practice in State M, including the licensure requirement, credential representation obligations, and the limits of permissible testimony scope given the absence of State M licensure.
casecontext: Engineer A, a licensed PE in states C, D, and E and a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, accepted an expert witness engagement in State M without holding State M licensure and without disclosing the absence of State M licensure in the signed report.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Accepting the engagement, preparing an expert opinion, and signing a report without verifying or complying with State M licensure requirements or accurately representing licensure status.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.268104
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Credential Trigger Awareness
type: ForensicCredentialLicensureTriggerAwareness
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger Awareness
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that using the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential in a report submitted in State M triggered State M licensure requirements, even though Engineer A had deliberately omitted the PE designation.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not State M, signed an expert report as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, which the BER found triggered State M licensure requirements and constituted unlicensed practice.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Signing the expert report with the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential in State M where Engineer A held no license, constituting unlicensed practice.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
textreferences: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance
textreferences: the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.516825
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Constraint
type: EngineeringTitleCredentialAccuracyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained for non-engineering expert services in State M and deliberately omitted the P.E. designation from the signature block. However, Engineer A signed as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, which incorporates the word Engineering and requires the holder to be a licensed Professional Engineer, thereby claiming an engineering credential without State M licensure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineering Title Credential Accuracy Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from signing the expert report as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in State M, because that credential incorporates the word Engineering, implying an engineering qualification that Engineer A was not authorized to claim in State M without holding a State M engineering license.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:39.135187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:39.135187+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 95-10, State M engineering licensure law
sourcetext: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
temporalscope: At the time of signing and submitting the expert report in State M
textreferences: a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer
textreferences: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.514338
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Engineering Title Trigger
type: EngineeringCredentialJurisdictionalLicensureTriggerConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used the forensic engineering credential title in the signature block of an expert report prepared for State M litigation, triggering State M licensure requirements even though the engagement was characterized as non-engineering by retaining counsel.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineering Credential Jurisdictional Licensure Trigger Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's use of the title 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in a report submitted in State M triggered State M's engineering licensure requirements, because the title incorporated the word 'Engineering' and was used in connection with services rendered in that jurisdiction.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State M engineering licensure statute, State M Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
temporalscope: At the time of signing and submitting the expert report in State M
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.269167
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Title Credential Omission
type: CredentialScopeMisrepresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' with no reference to licensure status, omitting the fact that Engineer A held no State M license despite the State M statute requiring licensure for expert testimony.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Credential Scope Misrepresentation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from signing the expert report using only the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' designation without disclosing the absence of State M licensure, because that omission created a misleading impression about the engineer's authorization to practice in State M.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, State M engineering licensure statute
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
temporalscope: At the time of signing and submitting the expert report in State M
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.268838
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Title Entitlement
type: EngineeringTitleEntitlementAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Title Entitlement Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to assess whether use of the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title was permissible in State M given the absence of a State M license, resulting in use of an engineering-linked credential without the jurisdictional prerequisite.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A signed the expert report as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in State M where Engineer A held no license, despite the credential requiring PE licensure.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Signing the expert report with a forensic engineering diplomate credential in a jurisdiction where the underlying licensure prerequisite was not satisfied.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
textreferences: Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report. Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.517159
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Exemption Failure
type: Non-EngineeringExpertLicensureExemptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X retained Engineer A as a non-engineering expert, which could have exempted Engineer A from State M licensure requirements. However, Engineer A's use of the 'Forensic Engineering' credential title in the report negated any exemption that might otherwise have applied.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Engineering Expert Licensure Exemption Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not rely on the non-engineering expert exemption from State M licensure requirements because the credential used in the report incorporated the word 'Engineering,' bringing the engagement within the scope of State M's licensure statute.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State M engineering licensure statute, NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the engagement and preparing the expert report
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.269525
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Scope Boundary
type: Non-EngineeringExpertScopeBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that using a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential in a report submitted in State M court proceedings may cross the boundary from non-engineering consulting into engineering practice, triggering State M licensure requirements.
casecontext: Engineer A used a forensic engineering credential in a signed report for State M court proceedings while characterizing the engagement as non-engineering, without assessing whether the credential use triggered State M engineering practice definitions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize that signing a report with a forensic engineering credential in a State M proceeding may constitute engineering practice under State M law, regardless of the non-engineering characterization of the engagement.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518012
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Opposing Expert Communication
type: ExpertWitnessInter-PartyCommunicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A and Engineer B served as opposing experts in boiler explosion litigation while simultaneously sharing membership in a boiler code standards and safety committee. BER Case 19-3 prohibited Engineer A from communicating with Engineer B about the pending litigation without counsel direction.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Expert Witness Inter-Party Communication Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending boiler explosion litigation without explicit direction from retaining legal counsel.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:39.135187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:39.135187+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 19-3
sourcetext: Engineer A also has an obligation to '...not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.'
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the expert witness engagement in the boiler explosion litigation
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to '...not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.'
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.515099
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Report Signature Title Use
type: EngineeringTitleUseStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE and state engineering licensure boards
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms on Engineering Title and Credential Representation in Reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Title Use Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
usedby: Engineer A when preparing and signing the expert opinion report for State M proceedings.
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer A's choice to sign as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing licensure status satisfies or violates professional obligations regarding accurate credential representation.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.255166
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Acceptance
type: EngineeringScopeRecharacterizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X sought a non-engineering expert, but Engineer A's subsequent use of a forensic engineering credential and preparation of an expert opinion suggests the engagement may have been substantively engineering in nature, requiring Engineer A to independently assess whether the non-engineering characterization was accurate.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineering Scope Recharacterization Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from accepting Attorney X's characterization of the engagement as non-engineering expert services without independently assessing whether the work of evaluating the case, preparing an expert opinion, and providing testimony required the application of engineering knowledge or judgment.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the engagement from Attorney X
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.269818
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Resistance
type: ScopeRecharacterizationResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope Recharacterization Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to assess whether the engagement characterized by Attorney X as non-engineering expert services was substantively engineering practice requiring State M licensure, and to decline or restructure the engagement accordingly.
casecontext: Attorney X characterized the engagement as non-engineering expert testimony, but Engineer A used a forensic engineering credential in the signed report, raising the question of whether the work constituted engineering practice requiring State M licensure.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Accepting the non-engineering characterization without assessing whether use of a forensic engineering credential and preparation of an engineering opinion constituted engineering practice under State M law.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:22.997113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.267811
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case before Engineer A preparing an expert opinion
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony
from entity text: Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A preparing an expert opinion
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A preparing an expert opinion
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519558
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A chairing boiler code committee (Case 19-3) overlaps Engineer A serving as Defendant's expert (Case 19-3)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee... Engineer A is approached by Defendant's attorney to serve as an expert in the case
from entity text: Engineer A chairing boiler code committee (Case 19-3)
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Engineer A serving as Defendant's expert (Case 19-3)
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Engineer A serving as Defendant s expert Case 19-
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520181
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A preparing an expert opinion before Engineer A signing the report
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion... Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering'
from entity text: Engineer A preparing an expert opinion
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A signing the report
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A signing the report
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519661
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A signing the report before Engineer A providing testimony
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony [as a sequential process implied by the facts]
from entity text: Engineer A signing the report
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A providing testimony
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A providing testimony
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519733
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A's awareness of State M licensing requirement before Engineer A omitting P.E. designation from report signature
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A, aware of State M's licensing requirement for engineers providing testimony, deliberately omits the P.E. designation from the report signature
from entity text: Engineer A's awareness of State M licensing requirement
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A omitting P.E. designation from report signature
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A omitting P E designation from report s
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520014
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member
type: ForensicEngineeringExpertWitness
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'specialty': 'Forensic mechanical engineering', 'committee_role': "Member, technical subcommittee under Engineer A's committee", 'retaining_party': "Plaintiff's attorney"}
caseinvolvement: Forensic mechanical engineer serving as a member of a technical subcommittee under Engineer A's standards committee, retained by the plaintiff's attorney as expert witness in the same boiler explosion case in which Engineer A was retained by the defendant's attorney.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Plaintiff Attorney BER Case 19-3'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Chair Expert Witness'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Engineering Expert Witness
sourcetext: Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees
textreferences: Engineer B is retained as an expert by Plaintiffs attorney in a boiler explosion case
textreferences: Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.259716
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer B's retention as Plaintiff's expert (Case 19-3) before Engineer A being approached by Defendant's attorney (Case 19-3)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B is retained as an expert by Plaintiff's attorney in a boiler explosion case. Engineer A is approached by Defendant's attorney to serve as an expert in the case
from entity text: Engineer B's retention as Plaintiff's expert (Case 19-3)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A being approached by Defendant's attorney (Case 19-3)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A being approached by Defendant s attorne
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520098
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer Intern PE Exam Materiality
type: PEExamHistoryMaterialityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: PE Exam History Materiality Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The Engineer Intern correctly assessed, or the BER found it not unethical that the Engineer Intern did not disclose, prior PE exam failures because the employer had offered employment with full knowledge that the PE exam had not yet been passed, rendering the failure history non-material.
casecontext: BER Case 20-1: Engineer Intern disclosed intention to take the PE exam but did not disclose two prior failures. The BER found the omission not material because the employer offered employment knowing the exam had not been passed.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: BER conclusion that omission of two prior PE exam failures was not material given the employer's offer of employment with knowledge that the exam had not been passed.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:46:48.742666+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer Intern PE Exam Candidate
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
textreferences: In light of the employer's decision to offer employment with the full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not passed the PE exam, the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.517630
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer Intern's intention to take PE exam before prospective employer's offer of employment
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks... the employer's decision to offer employment with the full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not passed the PE exam
from entity text: Engineer Intern's intention to take PE exam
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: prospective employer's offer of employment
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: prospective employer s offer of employment
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519843
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer Intern's two previous PE exam failures before conversation with prospective employer
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
from entity text: Engineer Intern's two previous PE exam failures
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: conversation with prospective employer
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: conversation with prospective employer
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519929
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Ethics Violation Concluded
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Professional_Discipline_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Accountability_Constraint
activates constraint: Remediation_Obligation_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A moves from a position of contested conduct to a position of formally adjudicated misconduct. The finding is now part of the professional record and carries consequences for licensure, reputation, and future engagements.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Accept_Consequences_Of_Ethics_Finding
creates obligation: Disclose_Finding_As_Required_By_Applicable_Rules
creates obligation: Remediate_Future_Practice_To_Comply_With_Jurisdictional_Requirements
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: At the conclusion of the BER discussion and analysis, after all facts are evaluated
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: The BER analysis concludes that Engineer A's use of 'Forensic Engineering' in the credential title was both ethically and legally problematic, despite the omission of the P.E. designation, producing a formal finding of professional misconduct.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520637
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Expert Engagement Acceptance
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer and Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Potential conflict with State M licensing statute requiring engineers providing testimony to be licensed in State M
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of blurring the line between engineering and non-engineering expert roles given Engineer A's credentials
fulfills obligation text: Offering expertise within a recognized area of competence
fulfills obligation text: Responding to a legitimate professional request for expert services
guided by principle text: Honest representation of qualifications and scope of services
guided by principle text: Public protection through licensure compliance
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide qualified non-engineering expert services to Attorney X in State M, fulfilling a professional engagement
raises obligation text: Duty to avoid undertaking engagements that create foreseeable legal or ethical conflicts
raises obligation text: Duty to verify compliance with applicable state licensing laws before accepting an engagement
requires capability text: Ability to distinguish engineering from non-engineering expert roles
requires capability text: Forensic engineering expertise
requires capability text: Knowledge of applicable state licensing laws
temporal marker: Initial contact, before case evaluation began
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not State M, agreed to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M after being contacted by Attorney X seeking non-engineering expert services.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518568
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Expert Engagement Acceptance → Licensing Gap Identified
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not State M, agreed to evaluate a case, thereby triggering an immediate legal compliance gap upon acceptance of the engagement in State M jurisdiction
cause: Expert Engagement Acceptance
counterfactual: Had Engineer A declined the engagement or obtained State M licensure prior to acceptance, no licensing gap would have been triggered
effect: Licensing Gap Identified
necessary factors: Absence of State M licensure at time of acceptance
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to accept the engagement
necessary factors: State M jurisdictional authority over expert testimony
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Combination of voluntary engagement acceptance + pre-existing licensure gap + State M's territorial jurisdiction over the proceeding
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518902
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

III.1.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Licensing Gap Identified
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Jurisdiction_Compliance_Constraint
activates constraint: Practice_Within_Licensure_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from a potential expert witness to a legally constrained actor whose participation in State M proceedings is conditioned on resolving the licensure gap.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Whether_Work_Constitutes_Engineering_Practice
creates obligation: Disclose_Licensing_Status_To_Attorney
creates obligation: Obtain_Licensure_Or_Decline_Engagement
emergency status: high
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: At the time Attorney X contacts Engineer A, prior to any work beginning
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A is found to lack licensure in State M at the time of engagement, creating an immediate legal and ethical conflict because State M requires engineers to hold a license before providing expert engineering testimony.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518827
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states
textreferences: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
usedby: Engineer A and the Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the ethical permissibility of signing the report without disclosing licensure status.
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding honest representation of credentials, compliance with licensure laws, and faithful conduct as a professional engineer providing expert testimony.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.256310
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

PE Designation Omission
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed Professional Engineer and Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Omission of P.E. designation alone may be insufficient to cure the licensing compliance problem
foreseen unintended effects: Remaining credential references might still invoke engineering identity and bring Engineer A under State M's licensing law
fulfills obligation text: Partial attempt to comply with State M licensing statute by removing the explicit P.E. designation
guided by principle text: Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
guided by principle text: Honest and complete representation of professional status
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Avoid triggering State M's licensing statute by not explicitly claiming P.E. status, thereby preserving the framing of the engagement as non-engineering expert services
raises obligation text: Duty to avoid deceptive acts, as selective omission without full resolution of the credential problem could mislead the court about Engineer A's actual status
requires capability text: Judgment about how credential presentation affects legal compliance
requires capability text: Knowledge of state licensing laws and their scope
temporal marker: During report preparation, before signing
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Duty to fully resolve jurisdictional compliance before signing and submitting the report
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A, aware of State M's requirement that engineers providing expert testimony must be licensed in State M, deliberately chose to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the expert report.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518660
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

PE Designation Omission → State Licensing Requirement Triggered
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A, aware of State M's requirement that engineers providing expert testimony must be licensed, omitted the PE designation, thereby actively circumventing the disclosure mechanism that would have surfaced the licensure non-compliance
cause: PE Designation Omission
counterfactual: Had Engineer A disclosed the absence of a State M PE license or included an honest credential statement, the licensing requirement would have been surfaced and addressed before the report was finalized
effect: State Licensing Requirement Triggered
necessary factors: Deliberate choice to omit PE designation from credentials
necessary factors: Engineer A's prior knowledge of State M's licensure requirement
necessary factors: State M's enforceable statutory licensing standard for expert witnesses
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Combination of known legal requirement + conscious omission of PE designation + continued participation in the proceeding
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.518975
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Prior Case Precedent Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Honest_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Precedent_Consistency_Constraint
causes state change: A body of authoritative ethical guidance exists that applies to Engineer A's conduct, meaning the conduct cannot be evaluated in a vacuum but must be measured against established professional norms.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Apply_Established_Ethical_Standards_To_Current_Conduct
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: 1995 through 2020, prior to the current case
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: BER cases 95-10, 04-11, 19-3, and 20-1, decided between 1995 and 2020, established a body of precedent addressing engineers providing expert testimony across jurisdictions and the ethical obligations associated with credential representation, which now forms the evaluative backdrop for Engineer A's conduct.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520545
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Prior Case Precedent Established → Ethics Violation Concluded
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: BER cases 95-10, 04-11, 19-3, and 20-1, decided between 1995 and 2020, established a body of precedent that the BER analysis directly applies to conclude that Engineer A's conduct constitutes an ethics violation
cause: Prior Case Precedent Established
counterfactual: Without the body of prior BER precedent, the ethical conclusion might have been less definitive or categorized differently; however, the underlying NSPE Code violations would likely still have been identified independently
effect: Ethics Violation Concluded
necessary factors: BER's application of those precedents to Engineer A's specific fact pattern
necessary factors: Engineer A's conduct falling within the scope of behaviors addressed by prior cases
necessary factors: Existence of prior BER rulings addressing analogous credential and licensure conduct
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Combination of established precedent + Engineer A's conduct matching precedent fact patterns + BER's interpretive application of precedent to current case
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.519139
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527734
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528468
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528537
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528606
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528673
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528740
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528838
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528907
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528975
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527838
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.527923
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528003
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528082
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528160
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528239
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528316
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.528398
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was Engineer A’s self-description in the expert report ethical?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Attorney X bear any ethical responsibility for knowingly retaining an engineer who lacked State M licensure to provide testimony in a jurisdiction that explicitly requires it, and does Engineer A's acceptance of that engagement without disclosing the licensing gap implicate broader duties of candor to the court and the public?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: If Engineer A's forensic diplomate credential is what triggers the State M licensure requirement, was Engineer A obligated to proactively investigate whether any credential used in the report signature block would independently invoke that statute before signing the report?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Even if Engineer A's work was genuinely non-engineering in nature, does the Board's conclusion create a perverse incentive for engineers to strategically suppress their professional credentials in order to circumvent jurisdictional licensing requirements, and what systemic safeguards should exist to prevent such credential-stripping as a litigation tactic?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Was the court or opposing counsel in State M materially harmed by Engineer A's omission of licensure status, and should the NSPE Code of Ethics require engineers acting as expert witnesses to affirmatively disclose jurisdictions in which they are not licensed when those jurisdictions have explicit licensure requirements for expert testimony?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Permissibility conflict with the principle of Engineer A Credential Triggers State M Licensure, in that allowing an engineer to reframe their role as non-engineering to avoid licensure requirements may simultaneously render any credential-based title they use in that same report a misrepresentation of the scope of their engagement?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Honesty Credential Omission conflict with the principle of Engineer A PE Designation Omission Partial Compliance, given that omitting the PE designation may satisfy the narrow goal of avoiding a false claim of State M licensure while simultaneously creating a misleading impression about the full scope of Engineer A's professional qualifications and the nature of the work performed?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M conflict with the principle of Engineer A Non-Engineering Engagement Permissibility, in that the Board's conditional approval of the non-engineering engagement effectively allows the jurisdictional licensure requirement to be neutralized by a unilateral recharacterization of the work's nature, potentially undermining the legislative intent of State M's expert testimony statute?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Credential Use conflict with the principle of Engineer A Licensure Omission Materiality, in that the Board treats the forensic diplomate title as ethically impermissible because it implies engineering expertise, yet simultaneously holds that omitting the PE designation is permissible—creating an asymmetry where one credential triggers an ethics violation while the absence of another does not, even though both affect the court's ability to assess Engineer A's qualifications accurately?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty of honest credential representation by omitting PE licensure status while simultaneously invoking a forensic engineering credential that implicitly signals engineering expertise?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A bear a categorical duty to disclose jurisdictional unlicensed status to the court and opposing parties, independent of whether the engagement was formally scoped as non-engineering consulting?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the outcome of Engineer A's credential presentation — potentially misleading the court about the nature and authority of the expert's qualifications — produce net harm to the integrity of the judicial process and public trust in engineering expertise?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity by strategically selecting a credential title that avoided explicit PE designation while still leveraging an engineering-domain credential to enhance perceived authority in a jurisdiction where licensure was lacking?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's self-presentation have been ethical if the report signature had read 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, PE (licensed in States C, D, and E, not licensed in State M),' thereby fully disclosing both the credential and the jurisdictional licensure gap?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had declined to use the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential in the report signature and instead signed solely as 'Consultant A' with no engineering-related title — would the engagement have remained ethically permissible under State M's licensure statute and the NSPE Code?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.522986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would the ethical analysis have changed if Attorney X had been fully informed of Engineer A's unlicensed status in State M before retaining the expert, and had explicitly structured the engagement to avoid any engineering practice — thereby shifting responsibility for scope compliance from Engineer A to Attorney X?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.523142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if the State M licensing statute had contained an explicit exemption for Board-certified forensic engineering diplomates testifying as expert witnesses — would Engineer A's credential disclosure in the report signature have been not only permissible but affirmatively required to invoke that exemption, and how would that alter the Board's ethical conclusion?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.523262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Report Signature Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Honest_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Misleading_Credential_Prohibition
activates constraint: Public_Deception_Avoidance_Constraint
causes state change: A formal document now exists bearing a credential title that invokes engineering expertise while omitting the P.E. designation. The document is now part of the legal record and its credential framing cannot be undone.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Accept_Scrutiny_Of_Title_Choice_In_Legal_Proceedings
creates obligation: Ensure_Credential_Representation_Is_Not_Misleading
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After evaluation and opinion preparation, prior to testimony
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A's expert report is finalized and signed using the title 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' omitting the P.E. designation, which produces a document whose credential framing is now fixed and subject to legal and ethical scrutiny.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520452
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.075598
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076362
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076480
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076563
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076636
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076704
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076772
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076838
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076908
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076973
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077041
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.075715
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077111
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077178
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077244
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077310
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077377
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.077447
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.075799
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.075875
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.075944
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076042
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076125
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076206
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.076284
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

State Licensing Requirement Triggered
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Honest_Representation_Constraint
activates constraint: Jurisdiction_Compliance_Constraint
activates constraint: Unauthorized_Practice_Prohibition
causes state change: Engineer A's continued work on the engagement becomes legally precarious. Any report or testimony that constitutes engineering practice under State M law is now potentially in violation of State M licensing statutes.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Avoid_Representing_Work_As_Licensed_Engineering
creates obligation: Cease_Engineering_Work_Or_Obtain_Licensure
creates obligation: Inform_Attorney_Of_Legal_Constraint
emergency status: high
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Upon Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case, after Expert Engagement Acceptance
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: high
comment: State M's legal requirement that engineers providing expert testimony hold a valid State M license becomes an active operative constraint once Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case and prepare an expert opinion, making any subsequent engineering work potentially unlawful.
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.520358
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

State M Engineering Licensure Law
type: StateEngineeringLicensureStatute
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.96
createdby: State M legislature or licensing board
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State M Professional Engineering Licensure Statute
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:27:39.476531+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Engineering Licensure Statute
sourcetext: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance
textreferences: That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance
usedby: BER in determining that Engineer A's conduct constituted unlicensed practice
usedincontext: The licensing law of State M, which Engineer A was found to have violated by incorporating the word 'Engineering' into the signature block without holding a license in that state
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.257861
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

State M Expert Testimony Licensure Statute
type: StateEngineeringLicensureStatute
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: State M legislature or engineering licensure board
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State M Engineering Licensure Statute (Expert Testimony Provision)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:43.649722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Engineering Licensure Statute
sourcetext: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
usedby: Engineer A is subject to this statute when agreeing to provide expert testimony in State M courts.
usedincontext: Establishes the legal requirement that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M, creating the jurisdictional compliance obligation at issue in this case.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.254503
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217096+00:00
value: The BER found the titles violated the Code's requirements for truthful public statements and prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.55
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215839+00:00
value: The BER found the titles violated the Code's requirements for truthful public statements and prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215451+00:00
value: The BER found that the credential claim forfeited the non-engineering exception and constituted both unethical conduct and unlawful unlicensed practice in State M.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.216986+00:00
value: If the services were genuinely non-engineering, the omission of licensure status may be consistent with transparency because licensure status is not material to a non-engineering engagement. If the services were engineering in character, the omission would be a transparency violation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.216868+00:00
value: The BER found that the credential claim forfeited the non-engineering exception and constituted both unethical conduct and unlawful unlicensed practice in State M.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215562+00:00
value: The BER found that the credential claim forfeited the non-engineering exception and constituted both unethical conduct and unlawful unlicensed practice in State M.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215205+00:00
value: The permissibility of the engagement depends on whether the forensic diplomate credential is treated as an engineering credential invoking licensure obligations, or as a non-engineering professional credential that does not.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215033+00:00
value: The BER analysis turns on whether the services rendered were genuinely non-engineering in character and whether the credential representation in the report was consistent with that characterization. If the services were non-engineering and the credential representation did not imply engineering licensure, the licensure statute may not apply.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215967+00:00
value: The BER confirmed permissibility of the non-engineering engagement itself, while finding that Engineer A's credential claim forfeited this exception.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.216092+00:00
value: The BER confirmed permissibility of the non-engineering engagement itself, while finding that Engineer A's credential claim forfeited this exception.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217420+00:00
value: Engineer A could not provide expert testimony in a State M court without holding a valid engineering license in State M, regardless of licensure in States C, D, and E.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217634+00:00
value: The permissibility of the engagement depends on whether the forensic diplomate credential is treated as an engineering credential invoking licensure obligations, or as a non-engineering professional credential that does not.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.216504+00:00
value: The permissibility of the engagement depends on whether the forensic diplomate credential is treated as an engineering credential invoking licensure obligations, or as a non-engineering professional credential that does not.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217913+00:00
value: The BER found that the credential claim forfeited the non-engineering exception and constituted both unethical conduct and unlawful unlicensed practice in State M.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215337+00:00
value: The BER found the credential use unethical because it claimed the word Engineer and because the credential's requirements include PE licensure, overriding the non-engineering exception.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.216634+00:00
value: The BER found the credential use unethical because it claimed the word Engineer and because the credential's requirements include PE licensure, overriding the non-engineering exception.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.215675+00:00
value: The BER found that omitting PE while retaining the Forensic Engineering diplomate title did not achieve the transparency and accuracy required, because the diplomate credential itself implied PE licensure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217782+00:00
value: The BER found the credential use unethical because it claimed the word Engineer and because the credential's requirements include PE licensure, overriding the non-engineering exception.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.216242+00:00
value: The BER confirmed permissibility of the non-engineering engagement itself, while finding that Engineer A's credential claim forfeited this exception.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217205+00:00
value: The BER found no disqualifying conflict but required full disclosure of the committee role and the relationship with Engineer B, and prohibited ex parte communications with Engineer B.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217527+00:00
value: The BER analysis turns on whether the services rendered were genuinely non-engineering in character and whether the credential representation in the report was consistent with that characterization. If the services were non-engineering and the credential representation did not imply engineering licensure, the licensure statute may not apply.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.216379+00:00
value: If the services were genuinely non-engineering, the scope characterization has integrity. If the forensic engineering expertise was the actual basis for the opinion, the non-engineering label may lack integrity and the licensure requirement would apply.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:11:40.217312+00:00
value: The BER concluded that because the employer was not relying on the exam history in making the hiring decision, the omission did not rise to an unethical material misrepresentation.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted an engagement to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M, where Engineer A held no engineering license, despite a State M statute requiring licensure for engineers providing expert testimony.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A omitted the PE designation from the report signature block, demonstrating awareness of the State M licensure issue, but then included the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential, which independently implied PE status.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A signed a report in State M as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering despite not being licensed in State M, incorporating the word Engineer into the signature block and thereby claiming a credential whose requirements include PE licensure.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By incorporating the Forensic Engineering credential into the report signature, Engineer A brought the report within the scope of State M's engineering licensure law, converting what had been a permissible non-engineering engagement into unlicensed engineering practice.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's omission of any reference to licensure status from the expert report raises a honesty question about whether the credential representation, which prominently featured the forensic engineering diplomate designation, created a misleading impression.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A omitted any reference to licensure status from the expert report, and the ethical significance of that omission depends on whether the licensure status was material to the engagement, given that the engagement was structured as a non-engineering expert service.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing that Engineer A held no engineering license in State M, raising the question of whether the credential representation was misleading.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted an engagement characterized as non-engineering expert services in a jurisdiction where engineering expert testimony requires licensure. The scope of engagement integrity principle requires that this characterization be genuine.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted an engagement to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M, where Engineer A held no engineering license, despite a State M statute requiring licensure for engineers providing expert testimony.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was retained specifically as a non-engineering expert by Attorney X, and signed the report as 'Consultant A' rather than as an engineer, omitting any reference to engineering licensure, which is consistent with the structure of a non-engineering engagement.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as chair of a boiler code standards and safety committee, was obligated to disclose that role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to retaining defense counsel before serving as an expert witness in the boiler explosion case.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: ENGCO used the titles Engineer and Design Engineer in sale materials for personnel who lacked licensure, engineering degrees, or any college degree, violating the obligation to use only titles to which one is entitled.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: An Engineer Intern did not disclose two prior PE exam failures to a prospective employer who knew the intern had not yet passed the exam and offered employment on that basis, and the BER found the omission non-material and therefore not unethical.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: An engineer's business card listed a business address in a state where no license was held but explicitly identified the states of licensure, thereby overcoming the conventional assumption that a PE is licensed in the address state.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: An engineer with an address in State B but licensed only in State C performed engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B, with the business card clearly stating the scope of licensure.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where Engineer A held no license, and the BER found this permissible so long as Engineer A did not rely on engineering qualifications as the basis for the expert opinion.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted an engagement to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M, where Engineer A held no engineering license, despite a State M statute requiring licensure for engineers providing expert testimony.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted an engagement to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M, where Engineer A held no engineering license, despite a State M statute requiring licensure for engineers providing expert testimony.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted an engagement characterized as non-engineering expert services in a jurisdiction where engineering expert testimony requires licensure. The scope of engagement integrity principle requires that this characterization be genuine.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A signed a report in State M as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering despite not being licensed in State M, incorporating the word Engineer into the signature block and thereby claiming a credential whose requirements include PE licensure.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By incorporating the Forensic Engineering credential into the report signature, Engineer A brought the report within the scope of State M's engineering licensure law, converting what had been a permissible non-engineering engagement into unlicensed engineering practice.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By incorporating the Forensic Engineering credential into the report signature, Engineer A brought the report within the scope of State M's engineering licensure law, converting what had been a permissible non-engineering engagement into unlicensed engineering practice.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: ENGCO used the titles Engineer and Design Engineer in sale materials for personnel who lacked licensure, engineering degrees, or any college degree, violating the obligation to use only titles to which one is entitled.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: An Engineer Intern did not disclose two prior PE exam failures to a prospective employer who knew the intern had not yet passed the exam and offered employment on that basis, and the BER found the omission non-material and therefore not unethical.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as chair of a boiler code standards and safety committee, was obligated to disclose that role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to retaining defense counsel before serving as an expert witness in the boiler explosion case.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to verify that State M required a license for expert testimony and to obtain that license or decline the engagement before agreeing to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to hold a valid engineering license in State M before preparing an expert opinion and providing testimony in a State M court, as required by the State M licensing statute.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the engagement characterized by Attorney X as non-engineering expert services was substantively engineering expert testimony under State M law, and to decline the engagement or obtain the required license.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from signing the expert report as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in State M, because that credential incorporates the word Engineering and requires the holder to be a licensed Professional Engineer.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that using the credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in a report submitted in State M would incorporate engineering terminology that could trigger the State M licensure statute.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Once Engineer A incorporated the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential into the report signature, Engineer A was obligated to comply with State M's engineering licensure statute, which required a valid engineering license that Engineer A did not hold.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending boiler explosion litigation without direction from retaining legal counsel.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: ENGCO was obligated to refrain from referring to key personnel as Engineer or Design Engineer in sale materials when those personnel were not licensed, did not hold engineering degrees, and did not hold any college degree.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The Engineer Intern bore no obligation to disclose two prior PE exam failures to the prospective employer because the employer offered employment with full knowledge that the intern had not yet passed the exam, rendering the omission non-material.

BER Case 04-11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 04-11 Situation 2 Engineer
type: Multi-StateLicensedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Case 04-11 Situation 2 Address Unlicensed State
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed in multiple states, not in address state', 'issue': 'Resolved by clear identification of licensed states on business card'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer whose business card clearly identified the states of licensure and noted a business address in a state where no license was held, providing sufficient clarity to preserve ethical conformity.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: low
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Multi-State Licensed Engineer
sourcetext: Engineers business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineers business address is in another state, one in which no license is held
textreferences: Engineers business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineers business address is in another state, one in which no license is held
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.258690
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 04-11 Situation 3 Engineer
type: Non-EngineeringExpertConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Case 04-11 Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed in State C only', 'address': 'State B', 'services': 'Engineering in State C, non-engineering consulting in State B'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer with address in State B but licensed only in State C who performs engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B, providing sufficient clarity on the business card to preserve ethical conformity. This situation establishes the precedent that engineers may provide non-engineering expert services in jurisdictions where they are not licensed.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: medium
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Non-Engineering Expert Consultant
sourcetext: Engineers business card has an address in State B, but states that Engineer is licensed only in State C. Engineer performs engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B.
textreferences: Engineers business card has an address in State B, but states that Engineer is licensed only in State C. Engineer performs engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.258973
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 19-3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

BER Case 20-1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.521188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A State M Testimony Licensure
type: JurisdictionalExpertTestimonyLicensureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not in State M, was retained by Attorney X to provide expert testimony in State M. State M statute required licensure for any engineer providing expert testimony in its courts.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.98
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Jurisdictional Expert Testimony Licensure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not provide expert testimony in a State M court without holding a valid engineering license in State M, regardless of licensure in States C, D, and E.
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:41:23.879764+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State M engineering licensure statute
sourcetext: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing the expert report and providing testimony in State M
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.268498
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 04-11 Situation 2 Address Unlicensed State
type: BusinessCardLicensureClarity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Business card with address in unlicensed state
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: An engineer's business card listed a business address in a state where no license was held but explicitly identified the states of licensure, thereby overcoming the conventional assumption that a PE is licensed in the address state.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Explicit specification of licensed states on a business card provides sufficient clarity to avoid the conventional implication of licensure in the address state.
invokedby: BER Case 04-11 Situation 2 Engineer
principleclass: Business Card Licensure Clarity
sourcetext: Engineer's business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineer's business address is in another state, one in which no license is held.
tensionresolution: The BER found ethical conformity was preserved because clarity was provided.
textreferences: Engineer's business card clearly identifies the states in which a license is held and that Engineer's business address is in another state, one in which no license is held. The BER noted a conventional assumption that, absent other information, an Engineer with a 'P.E.' designation is licensed in the state of the specified address. However, in this case, Engineer clearly did not list the address state as a state in which a license was held. Clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.271377
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Case 04-11 Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting
type: Non-EngineeringExpertServicePermissibility
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-engineering consulting services in unlicensed state
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: An engineer with an address in State B but licensed only in State C performed engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B, with the business card clearly stating the scope of licensure.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Providing non-engineering services in a jurisdiction where one is not licensed is permissible when the business card clearly discloses the states of licensure and does not imply licensure in the state of the address.
invokedby: BER Case 04-11 Situation 3 Engineer
principleclass: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
sourcetext: Engineer's business card has an address in State B, but states that Engineer is licensed only in State C. Engineer performs engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B.
tensionresolution: The BER found ethical conformity was preserved because the card provided clarity about the scope of licensure.
textreferences: Case 04-11, situation (3) clearly contemplates that engineers who qualify as experts in non-engineering areas may provide those non-engineering services in jurisdictions in which they are not licensed
textreferences: Engineer's business card has an address in State B, but states that Engineer is licensed only in State C. Engineer performs engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B. As in the second situation, clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.271703
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ENGCO Personnel Unearned Engineer Title
type: CredentialTitleMisuseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the period when ENGCO sale materials described inspection personnel as Engineer and Design Engineer
affectedparties: ENGCO
affectedparties: ENGCO inspection personnel
affectedparties: prospective clients
affectedparties: public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
stateclass: Credential Title Misuse State
subject: ENGCO's use of Engineer and Design Engineer titles for unlicensed, non-degreed personnel in sale materials
terminatedby: BER inquiry and finding that the references likely violated the Code of Ethics
textreferences: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
triggeringevent: ENGCO's publication of sale materials using Engineer and Design Engineer titles for personnel who were not licensed and did not hold engineering degrees
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.260677
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ENGCO Personnel Unlicensed Title Users
type: UnlicensedEngineeringTitleUser
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: ENGCO Personnel Title Misuse
has obligation: ENGCO Personnel Title Misuse Obligation
attributes: {'license': 'None', 'education': 'No college degree', 'title_used': 'Engineer and Design Engineer'}
caseinvolvement: Key personnel at ENGCO were referred to in sale materials as Engineer and Design Engineer despite not being licensed, not holding engineering degrees, and not holding college degrees of any kind, in violation of the Code of Ethics requirements for truthful public statements.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'ENGCO'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unlicensed Engineering Title User
sourcetext: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as Engineer and Design Engineer, when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
textreferences: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as Engineer and Design Engineer, when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.258136
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Credential Omission Report
type: CredentialOmissionMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A signs the report through any correction or conclusion of the engagement
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State M court
affectedparties: opposing parties
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:49.824672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:49.824672+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status
stateclass: Credential Omission Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A's signing of the expert report with a credential title that omits any reference to licensure status
terminatedby: Not terminated within the described scenario
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status
triggeringevent: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' with no reference to licensure status in State M or any other jurisdiction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.255928
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Honesty Credential Omission
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert report signed in State M proceedings
balancingwith: Credential Disclosure Materiality
balancingwith: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's omission of any reference to licensure status from the expert report raises a honesty question about whether the credential representation, which prominently featured the forensic engineering diplomate designation, created a misleading impression about Engineer A's standing to provide engineering-related testimony in State M.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Honesty requires that professional representations not create false impressions by omission. The use of a forensic engineering credential without any disclosure of the absence of State M licensure may create the impression that Engineer A is authorized to provide engineering testimony in State M, which would be false.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
tensionresolution: If the engagement is genuinely non-engineering, the omission does not create a false impression because licensure is not relevant. If the engagement is engineering in character, the omission is a honesty violation because it conceals a material qualification deficiency.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.265972
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Licensure Omission Materiality
type: CredentialDisclosureMateriality
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert report and testimony in State M
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
balancingwith: Professional Identity Transparency in Credentials
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A omitted any reference to licensure status from the expert report, and the ethical significance of that omission depends on whether the licensure status was material to the engagement, given that the engagement was structured as a non-engineering expert role.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The credential disclosure materiality principle requires assessing whether the omitted licensure information would be reasonably likely to affect the decision or reliance of the court, the retaining attorney, or opposing parties. If the engagement is genuinely non-engineering, licensure status may not be material. If the State M statute applies to the engagement, the omission is highly material.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Credential Disclosure Materiality
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
tensionresolution: Materiality analysis turns on the characterization of the services. The BER's resolution of the jurisdictional licensure question determines whether the omission was material and therefore ethically significant.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.265258
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Chair Expert Witness
type: EngineeringStandardsCommitteeChair
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Standards Chair Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Opposing Expert Communication Restriction
attributes: {'specialty': 'Forensic mechanical engineering', 'committee_role': 'Chair, boiler code standards and safety committee', 'retaining_party': "Defendant's attorney"}
caseinvolvement: Forensic mechanical engineer chairing a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society who was approached by a defendant's attorney to serve as expert witness in a boiler explosion case. The BER found no conflict but required full disclosure of the committee chair role and of Engineer B's participation in a subcommittee.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Defendant Attorney BER Case 19-3'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Engineering Standards Committee Chair
sourcetext: Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
textreferences: Engineer A is approached by Defendants attorney to serve as an expert in the case
textreferences: Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.259333
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed State M Practice
type: UnlicensedJurisdictionPracticeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A agrees to provide testimony in State M through the conclusion of the engagement
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State M court
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:49.824672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:49.824672+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M
stateclass: Unlicensed Jurisdiction Practice State
subject: Engineer A's provision of expert testimony in State M without holding a State M engineering license
terminatedby: Not terminated within the described scenario
textreferences: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E)
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M
triggeringevent: Engineer A agrees to provide expert testimony in State M while holding licenses only in States C, D, and E
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.261436
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer Intern PE Exam Candidate
type: EngineerInternCandidate
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer Intern PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer Intern PE Exam Non-Disclosure
attributes: {'license': 'Not yet licensed', 'exam_history': 'Two prior PE exam failures not disclosed', 'disclosure': 'Disclosed intent to take exam, did not disclose prior failures'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Intern who disclosed intention to take the PE exam to a prospective employer but did not disclose two prior failures. The BER found the omission was not material because the employer offered employment with full knowledge that the exam had not yet been passed.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Prospective Employer BER Case 20-1'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Engineer Intern Candidate
sourcetext: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.260000
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer Intern PE Exam Failure Omission
type: ImmaterialOmissionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the employment interview and offer process
affectedparties: Engineer Intern
affectedparties: prospective employer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
stateclass: Immaterial Omission State
subject: Engineer Intern's non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures to a prospective employer who knew the intern had not yet passed the PE exam
terminatedby: Employer's offer of employment with full knowledge that the intern had not passed the PE exam; BER finding that the omission was not material
textreferences: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
textreferences: the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern disclosed the intention to take the PE exam but did not disclose two prior failures when not asked
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.263369
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineers A and B Opposing Experts Shared Committee
type: OpposingExpertSharedCommitteeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A was approached to serve as defense expert through the conclusion of the litigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: defendant's attorney
affectedparties: engineering society standards committee
affectedparties: plaintiff's attorney
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, while Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees
stateclass: Opposing Expert Shared Committee State
subject: Engineer A as committee chair and Engineer B as subcommittee member simultaneously serving as opposing experts in boiler explosion litigation
terminatedby: Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal of one expert from the engagement
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
textreferences: Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, while Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees
textreferences: Engineer B is retained as an expert by Plaintiff's attorney in a boiler explosion case. Engineer A is approached by Defendant's attorney to serve as an expert in the case
triggeringevent: Engineer B was retained by plaintiff's attorney and Engineer A was approached by defendant's attorney in the same boiler explosion case, while both served on the same boiler code standards and safety committee
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.263848
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Attorney X Retaining Legal Counsel
type: RetainingLegalCounsel
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Engagement Scope Integrity
adheres to principle: Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M
adheres to principle: Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Permissibility
attributes: {'jurisdiction': 'State M', 'engagement_type': 'Non-engineering expert testimony'}
caseinvolvement: Attorney who contacted Engineer A seeking a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M, thereby initiating the engagement and defining its scope as non-engineering expert work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:38.357855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:38.357855+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Consultant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Retaining Legal Counsel
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.254101
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Credential Representation Report
type: ProfessionalIdentityTransparencyinCredentials
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert report prepared for State M proceedings
balancingwith: Credential Disclosure Materiality
balancingwith: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing that Engineer A held no engineering license in State M, raising the question of whether the credential representation was transparent about the capacity in which services were rendered.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The professional identity transparency principle requires that credential representations not mislead parties about the professional's authority. The use of 'Consultant A' rather than an engineering title, combined with the forensic diplomate credential, may be transparent about the non-engineering basis for the opinion. However, the complete omission of any reference to licensure status, in a jurisdiction with a specific licensure requirement for engineering testimony, raises a question about whether the representation was sufficiently transparent.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Professional Identity Transparency in Credentials
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
tensionresolution: If the services were genuinely non-engineering, the omission of licensure status may be consistent with transparency because licensure status is not material to a non-engineering engagement. If the services were engineering in character, the omission would be a transparency violation.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.264947
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A PE Designation Omission Partial Compliance
type: ProfessionalIdentityTransparencyinCredentials
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert report signature block in State M
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A omitted the PE designation from the report signature block, demonstrating awareness of the State M licensure issue, but then included the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential, which independently implied PE status.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Partial compliance with credential transparency obligations is insufficient when the remaining credential independently conveys the same professional status that was deliberately omitted.
invokedby: Engineer A Non-Engineering Consultant State M
principleclass: Professional Identity Transparency in Credentials
sourcetext: Engineer A was clearly sensitive to the issue of State M licensing, because Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report. Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.'
tensionresolution: The BER found that omitting PE while retaining the Forensic Engineering diplomate title did not achieve the transparency and accuracy required, because the diplomate credential itself implied PE licensure.
textreferences: Engineer A was clearly sensitive to the issue of State M licensing, because Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report. Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.'
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.510907
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Misuse
type: CredentialTitleMisuseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the signing of the expert report through the BER review of the present case
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State M licensing authority
affectedparties: opposing parties in litigation
affectedparties: retaining attorney
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
stateclass: Credential Title Misuse State
subject: Engineer A's use of Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in the report signature block in State M
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; BER finding constitutes the resolution
textreferences: a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer
textreferences: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
triggeringevent: Engineer A signed the expert report as Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, incorporating the term Engineer into the credential title while not holding a PE license in State M
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.261047
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Retention State M
type: Non-EngineeringExpertRetentionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of retention through the signing of the expert report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State M licensing authority
affectedparties: retaining attorney
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:10.089788+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services
stateclass: Non-Engineering Expert Retention State
subject: Engineer A's retention to provide non-engineering expert services in State M
terminatedby: Engineer A's use of a credential title incorporating Engineer brought the engagement back under engineering licensure requirements, effectively ending the non-engineering-only character of the retention
textreferences: Case 04-11, situation (3) clearly contemplates that engineers who qualify as experts in non-engineering areas may provide those non-engineering services in jurisdictions in which they are not licensed
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services
textreferences: So long as Engineer A was qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications (education, experience, and examination), Engineer A is not precluded or restricted by the NSPE Code of Ethics from providing those non-engineering expert services
triggeringevent: Attorney retained Engineer A explicitly to provide non-engineering expert services in State M litigation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.261797
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer Intern PE Exam Non-Disclosure
type: PEExamHistoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer Intern PE Exam Failure Omission
casecontext: Engineer Intern disclosed intention to take the PE exam but did not disclose two prior failures. The employer offered employment knowing the intern had not passed. The BER concluded the omission was not material and therefore not unethical.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Engineer Intern PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern
obligationclass: PE Exam History Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: The Engineer Intern bore no obligation to disclose two prior PE exam failures to the prospective employer because the employer offered employment with full knowledge that the intern had not yet passed the exam, rendering the omission non-material.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam. The question was whether the failure to disclose constituted the omission of a material fact. In light of the employer's decision to offer employment with the full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not passed the PE exam, the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical.
temporalscope: At the time of the employment offer and acceptance
textreferences: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam. The question was whether the failure to disclose constituted the omission of a material fact. In light of the employer's decision to offer employment with the full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not passed the PE exam, the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.512179
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ENGCO Personnel Title Misuse Obligation
type: EngineeringTitleUseAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: ENGCO Personnel Unearned Engineer Title
prevails over: Engineer A Opposing Expert Communication Restriction
casecontext: ENGCO used engineering titles in sale materials consistent with federal agency contract terminology, but the BER found this likely violated the ethics code requirements for truthful public statements and non-deceptive conduct.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: ENGCO Personnel Title Misuse
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: ENGCO
obligationclass: Engineering Title Use Accuracy Obligation
obligationstatement: ENGCO was obligated to refrain from referring to key personnel as Engineer or Design Engineer in sale materials when those personnel were not licensed, did not hold engineering degrees, and did not hold any college degree.
sourcetext: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and distributing sale materials referencing personnel qualifications
textreferences: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort.
textreferences: the BER agreed with ENGCO that these references likely violated the Code's requirements that public statements be truthful, that engineers are to avoid deceptive acts, and that engineers are not to falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentations of their qualifications
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.511284
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Engagement Scope Integrity
type: ScopeofEngagementIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert consulting and testimony engagement in State M
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
balancingwith: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A accepted an engagement characterized as non-engineering expert services in a jurisdiction where engineering expert testimony requires licensure. The scope of engagement integrity principle requires that this characterization be genuine and not a device to circumvent the State M licensure requirement.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engagement was structured by Attorney X as a non-engineering expert engagement, and Engineer A accepted it on that basis. The scope integrity question is whether the actual services rendered, including the preparation of an expert opinion and testimony, were genuinely non-engineering in character, or whether the non-engineering label was applied to engineering services to avoid the licensure requirement.
invokedby: Attorney X
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Scope of Engagement Integrity
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M. Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
tensionresolution: If the services were genuinely non-engineering, the scope characterization has integrity. If the forensic engineering expertise was the actual basis for the opinion, the non-engineering label may lack integrity and the licensure requirement would apply.
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.265650
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Engagement Permissibility
type: Non-EngineeringExpertServicePermissibility
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert consulting engagement in State M
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where Engineer A held no license, and the BER found this permissible so long as Engineer A did not rely on engineering qualifications as the basis for the expert opinion.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-engineering expert exception permits an unlicensed engineer to provide expert services in a jurisdiction where not licensed, provided engineering credentials are not invoked as the basis for the opinion.
invokedby: Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Consultant
principleclass: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services. So long as Engineer A was qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications (education, experience, and examination), Engineer A is not precluded or restricted by the NSPE Code of Ethics from providing those non-engineering expert services.
tensionresolution: The BER confirmed permissibility of the non-engineering engagement itself, while finding that Engineer A's credential claim forfeited this exception.
textreferences: Case 04-11, situation (3) clearly contemplates that engineers who qualify as experts in non-engineering areas may provide those non-engineering services in jurisdictions in which they are not licensed. This presumes that the engineer is not offering opinions about science and/or mathematics directly related to his/her engineering qualifications.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services. So long as Engineer A was qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications (education, experience, and examination), Engineer A is not precluded or restricted by the NSPE Code of Ethics from providing those non-engineering expert services.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.509915
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Consultant
type: Non-EngineeringExpertConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M
adheres to principle: Engineer A Non-Engineering Engagement Permissibility
has obligation: Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Compliance
has obligation: Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure Verification
has obligation: Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Avoidance
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer in States C, D, and E', 'specialty': 'Forensic Engineering', 'certification': 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering', 'state_M_license': 'None'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed PE in states C, D, and E, retained by Attorney X to provide non-engineering expert testimony in State M where Engineer A is not licensed. Signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing licensure status, despite a State M statute requiring engineers providing expert testimony to be licensed in State M.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:38.357855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:38.357855+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to', 'target': 'State M Licensing Statute'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Non-Engineering Expert Consultant
sourcetext: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony
textreferences: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.253487
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Permissibility
type: Non-EngineeringExpertServicePermissibility
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert opinion and testimony in State M
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
balancingwith: Professional Identity Transparency in Credentials
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was retained specifically as a non-engineering expert by Attorney X, and signed the report as 'Consultant A' rather than as an engineer, omitting any reference to engineering licensure, which is consistent with the structure of a non-engineering expert engagement.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-engineering expert service permissibility principle permits Engineer A to provide testimony in State M without State M licensure, provided the services are genuinely non-engineering and the credentials invoked do not imply engineering authority in State M. The use of 'Consultant A' and the forensic diplomate credential rather than an engineering title supports the non-engineering characterization, but the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential raises the question of whether the forensic engineering credential is an engineering credential for purposes of the licensure statute.
invokedby: Attorney X
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
tensionresolution: The permissibility of the engagement depends on whether the forensic diplomate credential is treated as an engineering credential invoking licensure obligations, or as a non-engineering professional credential that does not. The omission of licensure status from the report is consistent with the non-engineering characterization but may also raise transparency concerns.
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.264520
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Standards Chair Disclosure
type: ExpertWitnessRoleConflictDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert witness engagement in boiler explosion litigation
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as chair of a boiler code standards and safety committee, was obligated to disclose that role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to retaining defense counsel before serving as an expert witness in the boiler explosion case.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A standards committee chairmanship and a supervisory relationship over the opposing expert are circumstances that a reasonable attorney would consider material to assessing independence, triggering mandatory disclosure.
invokedby: Engineer A Standards Chair Expert Witness
principleclass: Expert Witness Role Conflict Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise [Defendant's attorney] that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
tensionresolution: The BER found no disqualifying conflict but required full disclosure of the committee role and the relationship with Engineer B, and prohibited ex parte communications with Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise [Defendant's attorney] that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.272083
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer Intern PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure
type: CredentialDisclosureMateriality
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Pre-employment disclosure to prospective employer
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: An Engineer Intern did not disclose two prior PE exam failures to a prospective employer who knew the intern had not yet passed the exam and offered employment on that basis, and the BER found the omission non-material and therefore not unethical.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The employer's decision to hire with full knowledge that the PE had not been passed rendered the number of prior failures immaterial to the employment decision.
invokedby: Engineer Intern PE Exam Candidate
principleclass: Credential Disclosure Materiality
sourcetext: In light of the employer's decision to offer employment with the full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not passed the PE exam, the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical.
tensionresolution: The BER concluded that because the employer was not relying on the exam history in making the hiring decision, the omission did not rise to an unethical material misrepresentation.
textreferences: Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam
textreferences: In light of the employer's decision to offer employment with the full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not passed the PE exam, the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.509508
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

ENGCO Personnel Title Misuse
type: ProfessionalTitleAccuracy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Sale materials describing inspection personnel
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: ENGCO used the titles Engineer and Design Engineer in sale materials for personnel who lacked licensure, engineering degrees, or any college degree, violating the obligation to use only titles to which one is entitled.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Using a protected professional title without holding the underlying qualification is unethical regardless of whether federal contract language also used the term.
invokedby: ENGCO
principleclass: Professional Title Accuracy
sourcetext: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort.
tensionresolution: The BER found the titles violated the Code's requirements for truthful public statements and prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications.
textreferences: ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and, in fact, did not have college degrees of any sort
textreferences: using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.270817
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Retention
type: Non-EngineeringExpertEngagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Attorney X's initial contact through Engineer A's agreement to evaluate, prepare opinion, and testify
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:26:49.824672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:26:49.824672+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
stateclass: Non-Engineering Expert Engagement State
subject: Engineer A's engagement by Attorney X for non-engineering expert testimony in State M
terminatedby: Not terminated within the described scenario
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony
triggeringevent: Attorney X contacts Engineer A seeking a non-engineering expert, and Engineer A agrees to the engagement on that basis
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.255506
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Opposing Expert Communication Restriction
type: ExpertWitnessOpposingCounselCommunicationRestrictionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineers A and B Opposing Experts Shared Committee
casecontext: Engineer A and Engineer B shared a professional relationship through the boiler code standards committee, with Engineer A as chair and Engineer B as a subcommittee member. Both were retained as opposing experts in the same boiler explosion litigation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Engineer A Standards Chair Disclosure
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Opposing Counsel Communication Restriction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending boiler explosion litigation without direction from retaining legal counsel.
sourcetext: Engineer A also has an obligation to '... not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.'
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the pending litigation
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to '... not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.'
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.511901
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger
type: ForensicCredentialLicensureTriggerAwarenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Compliance
defeasible under: Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Retention
casecontext: Engineer A, retained as a non-engineering expert in State M where no engineering license was held, signed the report with the credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' which incorporates engineering terminology that may bring the engagement within the scope of the State M licensure statute.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Engineer A Credential Triggers State M Licensure
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger Awareness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that using the credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in a report submitted in State M would incorporate engineering terminology that could trigger the State M licensure statute, and to either obtain the required license or avoid using that credential designation in the report.
sourcetext: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and signing the expert report for use in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.513055
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Credential Use
type: ProfessionalTitleAccuracy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert report signature block in State M litigation
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
balancingwith: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A signed a report in State M as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering despite not being licensed in State M, incorporating the word Engineer into the signature block and thereby claiming a credential whose requirements include PE licensure.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Using a credential title that incorporates Engineer and that by definition requires PE licensure is equivalent to claiming PE status, and is unethical when the engineer is not licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.
invokedby: Engineer A Non-Engineering Consultant State M
principleclass: Professional Title Accuracy
sourcetext: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.' Furthermore, the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer.
tensionresolution: The BER found the credential use unethical because it claimed the word Engineer and because the credential's requirements include PE licensure, overriding the non-engineering exception.
textreferences: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.' Furthermore, the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer.
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.510255
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure Verification
type: JurisdictionalLicensureVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Use
defeasible under: Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Retention
casecontext: Engineer A, licensed in states C, D, and E but not in State M, accepted an engagement from Attorney X to provide expert testimony in State M, where the licensing statute requires any engineer providing expert testimony to be licensed in State M.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Jurisdictional Licensure Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to verify that State M required a license for expert testimony and to obtain that license or decline the engagement before agreeing to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M.
sourcetext: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
temporalscope: Before accepting the engagement and before preparing any report or providing testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
textreferences: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.266339
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Credential Triggered Licensure Compliance
type: Credential-TriggeredLicensureComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Use
defeasible under: Engineer A Credential Omission Report
defeasible under: Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Misuse
prevails over: Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Avoidance
casecontext: Engineer A's use of the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential in the State M report brought the work within State M's licensure law. The BER found this constituted unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Engineer A Credential Triggers State M Licensure
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Credential-Triggered Licensure Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Once Engineer A incorporated the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential into the report signature, Engineer A was obligated to comply with State M's engineering licensure statute, which required a valid engineering license that Engineer A did not hold.
sourcetext: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance. That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful.
temporalscope: At the time of signing and submitting the expert report in State M
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance. That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.513415
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineering Consultant State M
type: Non-EngineeringExpertConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Credential Representation Report
adheres to principle: Engineer A Credential Triggers State M Licensure
adheres to principle: Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Credential Use
adheres to principle: Engineer A Honesty Credential Omission
adheres to principle: Engineer A Licensure Omission Materiality
adheres to principle: Engineer A PE Designation Omission Partial Compliance
has obligation: Engineer A Credential Triggered Licensure Compliance
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Use
attributes: {'license': 'Not licensed in State M', 'credential_used': 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering', 'PE_designation': 'Omitted from signature block', 'violation': 'Use of Engineer in title without State M license; unlicensed practice'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed professional engineer retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where the engineer held no license. Engineer A omitted the P.E. designation from the report signature but signed as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, which incorporates the word Engineer and requires PE licensure, thereby invoking engineering credentials and bringing the engagement under State M licensing law in violation of ethics and law.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:28:00.339546+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Retaining Legal Counsel State M'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Non-Engineering Expert Consultant
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services
textreferences: Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report
textreferences: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services
textreferences: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the E word, Engineer
textreferences: incorporating Engineer or Engineering into Engineer As signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State Ms licensing law
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.260291
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Avoidance
type: ScopeRecharacterizationAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Compliance
defeasible under: Engineer A Non-Engineering Retention State M
casecontext: Attorney X sought a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M, and Engineer A accepted the engagement under that characterization despite the State M statute requiring any engineer providing expert testimony to be licensed, raising the question of whether the non-engineering label was sufficient to avoid the licensure requirement.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineer A Engagement Scope Integrity
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Scope Recharacterization Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the engagement characterized by Attorney X as non-engineering expert services was substantively engineering expert testimony under State M law, and to decline the engagement or obtain the required license rather than accepting a recharacterization designed to circumvent the State M licensure requirement.
sourcetext: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the engagement and before preparing the expert report.
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.267125
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Credential Triggers State M Licensure
type: Credential-TriggeredLicensureScope
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert report in State M litigation
balancingwith: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
balancingwith: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: By incorporating the Forensic Engineering credential into the report signature, Engineer A brought the report within the scope of State M's engineering licensure law, converting what had been a permissible non-engineering engagement into unlicensed engineering practice.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:43:21.746484+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The act of claiming an engineering-titled credential in a professional document triggers jurisdictional licensure obligations regardless of how the underlying services were characterized.
invokedby: Engineer A Non-Engineering Consultant State M
principleclass: Credential-Triggered Licensure Scope
sourcetext: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance. That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful.
tensionresolution: The BER found that the credential claim forfeited the non-engineering exception and constituted both unethical conduct and unlawful unlicensed practice in State M.
textreferences: That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into Engineer A's signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.510590
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M
type: JurisdictionalLicensureCompliance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Expert testimony engagement in State M
balancingwith: Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A accepted an engagement to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M, where Engineer A held no engineering license, despite a State M statute requiring licensure for engineers providing expert testimony in State M courts.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:39:35.848357+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The State M licensing statute creates a direct jurisdictional licensure compliance obligation. The ethical question is whether Engineer A's engagement as a non-engineering expert rather than an engineering expert is a genuine distinction that removes the licensure obligation, or whether the forensic engineering credential invoked in the report brings the engagement within the statute's scope.
invokedby: Attorney X
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance
sourcetext: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
tensionresolution: The BER analysis turns on whether the services rendered were genuinely non-engineering in character and whether the credential representation in the report was consistent with that characterization. If the services were non-engineering and the credential representation did not imply engineering licensure, the licensure statute may not apply.
textreferences: Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.264187
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Use
type: EngineeringTitleUseAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Credential Triggered Licensure Compliance
competes with: Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure Verification
defeasible under: Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Misuse
prevails over: Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Compliance
casecontext: Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where Engineer A held no license. Engineer A omitted the PE designation from the signature block but signed as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, which the BER found incorporated the engineering credential impermissibly.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Credential Use
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:45:13.113997+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Engineering Title Use Accuracy Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from signing the expert report as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in State M, because that credential incorporates the word Engineering and requires the holder to be a licensed Professional Engineer, a status Engineer A did not hold in State M.
sourcetext: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.' Furthermore, the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer.
temporalscope: At the time of signing and submitting the expert report in State M
textreferences: by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.' Furthermore, the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer.
textreferences: incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.512659
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction

Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Compliance
type: ExpertWitnessLicensureComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger
competes with: Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Avoidance
defeasible under: Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Retention
defeasible under: Engineer A Non-Engineering Retention State M
defeasible under: Engineer A Unlicensed State M Practice
casecontext: Engineer A accepted an engagement to provide expert testimony in State M without holding a State M engineering license, despite the State M statute requiring licensure for any engineer providing expert testimony in that jurisdiction.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M
discoveredincase: 60
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 60
generatedattime: 2026-05-27T19:40:31.831980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Expert Witness Licensure Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to hold a valid engineering license in State M before preparing an expert opinion and providing testimony in a State M court, as required by the State M licensing statute.
sourcetext: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
temporalscope: Prior to preparing the expert report and providing testimony in State M.
textreferences: Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
wasattributedto: Case 60 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-05-27T20:10:55.266794
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 60 Extraction