Attorney X contacting Engineer A before Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case
Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert... Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case
Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case
in BER Case 04-11, four different self-designation situations were evaluated
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
BER in analyzing Engineer A's provision of expert services in State M
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
{'license': 'Licensed in States B, C, and D', 'issue': 'Business card lacked physical address, creating confusion about licensure in State E'}
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.
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.
Cases are numbered sequentially by year prefix: 04-11 (circa 2004) precedes 19-3 (circa 2019)
in BER Case 19-3, Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
Engineer A has an obligation to fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee
BER in contextualizing Engineer A's forensic engineering expert role
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
Cases are numbered sequentially by year prefix: 19-3 (circa 2019) precedes 20-1 (circa 2020)
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
the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical
BER in contextualizing disclosure obligations relevant to Engineer A's case
Cited as precedent addressing the materiality of omissions in disclosure contexts, specifically whether failure to disclose prior PE exam failures constitutes an unethical omission
BER Case 20-1 before present case involving Engineer A
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'
in BER Case 95-10, ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed
In accordance with the findings of Case 95-10, incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
BER in analyzing Engineer A's use of the Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential
Cited as precedent establishing that using the title 'Engineer' or 'Design Engineer' without licensure or qualifying credentials is unethical
Cases are numbered sequentially by year prefix: 95-10 (circa 1995) precedes 04-11 (circa 2004)
Board-certified Diplomate Forensic Engineering Credential
National Academy of Forensic Engineers or equivalent credentialing body
Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering Credentialing Standard
Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
Engineer A is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
Engineer A in signing the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.'
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.
Case 04-11 Situation 1 Business Card Clarity
Business Card Licensure Clarity Capability
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.
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.
Distribution of business cards lacking a physical address at a meeting in State E, creating confusion about licensure status.
the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure
During the business meeting in State E where the cards were distributed
recipients of the business card in State E
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
Engineer licensed in States B, C, and D distributing business cards with no physical address at a meeting in State E
BER finding that the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception
Engineer distributed business cards with no physical address in a state where the engineer held no license
Case 04-11 Situation 2 Address Unlicensed State Card
During the period the business card was in use
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
Engineer whose business card clearly identifies licensed states and lists an address in a state where no license is held
BER finding that clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved
Engineer distributed a business card listing an address in a state where no license was held, alongside clear identification of the states of licensure
Case 04-11 Situation 2 Business Card Clarity
The engineer demonstrated the capability to ensure business cards clearly conveyed licensure states and distinguished the business address state from licensed states.
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.
Business card clearly identifying states of licensure and noting that the business address state was not a state of licensure.
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
Case 04-11 Situation 3 Business Card Clarity
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.
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.
Business card stating address in State B but licensure only in State C, with clear distinction between the two.
Engineer's business card has an address in State B, but states that Engineer is licensed only in State C
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
However, when Engineer A claimed status as a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A’s self-presentation became unethical.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
licensed Professional Engineer and Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
The credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' inherently requires P.E. licensure, so its use effectively signals engineering status to any informed reader
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.'
Attempted partial compliance with State M licensing statute by omitting P.E. designation
Attempted to present legitimate, earned professional credentials
Avoidance of deceptive acts or misrepresentation of credentials
Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
Truthful and complete public statements about qualifications
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
Ability to identify when a credential implicitly claims engineering status
Legal judgment about jurisdictional scope of licensing requirements
Understanding of how credential titles interact with state licensing statutes
At report signing, after case evaluation was complete
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
Duty to avoid acts that constitute unlicensed practice of engineering
Duty to avoid deceptive acts, since the credential implies P.E. licensure that Engineer A did not hold in State M
Duty to comply with State M licensing statute, which covers any engineer providing testimony
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.
Credential Title Selection → Ethics Violation Concluded
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
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
BER's interpretive authority to evaluate credential title ethics
Engineer A's active selection of a credential title incorporating 'Forensic Engineering'
Prior BER precedent (Cases 95-10, 04-11, 19-3, 20-1) establishing standards for permissible credential titles
State M's licensure requirement rendering the title contextually misleading
Combination of misleading title selection + established BER precedent prohibiting such usage + context of unlicensed State M practice
Should Engineer A verify State M licensure requirements and assess whether the engagement is substantively engineering work before accepting the retainer from Attorney X?
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.
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.
Engineer A relies on Attorney X's characterization that the engagement is non-engineering consulting and accepts without independently verifying State M licensure requirements.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineering Title Credential Accuracy Constraint
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.
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
At the time of distribution of sale materials referencing personnel titles
using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical
Engineering Title Entitlement Assessment Capability
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.
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.
Failure to assess entitlement before using engineering titles in sale materials, prompting BER inquiry in Case 95-10.
Credential Disclosure Accuracy Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
Engineer A Credential Representation Accuracy
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.
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.
Signing the expert report with the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential without disclosing the absence of State M licensure.
Engineer A Non-Engineering Consultant State M
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'
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
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
Engineer A Forensic Credential Trigger Awareness
Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger Awareness
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.
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.
Signing the expert report with the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential in State M where Engineer A held no license, constituting unlicensed practice.
by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer
Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Constraint
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 95-10, State M engineering licensure law
At the time of signing and submitting the expert report in State M
a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer
incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
Engineer A Forensic Engineering Title Trigger
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.
Engineering Credential Jurisdictional Licensure Trigger Constraint
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.
State M engineering licensure statute, State M Engineering Licensure Law
Engineer A Forensic Title Credential Omission
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.
Credential Scope Misrepresentation Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics, State M engineering licensure statute
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.
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.
Signing the expert report with a forensic engineering diplomate credential in a jurisdiction where the underlying licensure prerequisite was not satisfied.
Engineer A Non-Engineering Exemption Failure
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.
Non-Engineering Expert Licensure Exemption Constraint
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.
State M engineering licensure statute, NSPE Code of Ethics
Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
At the time of accepting the engagement and preparing the expert report
Engineer A Non-Engineering Scope Boundary
Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Opposing Expert Communication
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.
Expert Witness Inter-Party Communication Constraint
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.
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.'
Throughout the duration of the expert witness engagement in the boiler explosion litigation
NSPE and state engineering licensure boards
Professional Norms on Engineering Title and Credential Representation in Reports
Engineer A when preparing and signing the expert opinion report for State M proceedings.
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.
Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Acceptance
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.
Engineering Scope Recharacterization Constraint
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.
At the time of accepting the engagement from Attorney X
Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Resistance
Scope Recharacterization Resistance Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case before Engineer A preparing an expert opinion
Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony
Engineer A chairing boiler code committee (Case 19-3) overlaps Engineer A serving as Defendant's expert (Case 19-3)
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
Engineer A chairing boiler code committee (Case 19-3)
Engineer A serving as Defendant's expert (Case 19-3)
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
Engineer A preparing an expert opinion before Engineer A signing the report
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'
Engineer A signing the report before Engineer A providing testimony
Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony [as a sequential process implied by the facts]
Engineer A's awareness of State M licensing requirement before Engineer A omitting P.E. designation from report signature
Engineer A, aware of State M's licensing requirement for engineers providing testimony, deliberately omits the P.E. designation from the report signature
Engineer A's awareness of State M licensing requirement
Engineer A omitting P.E. designation from report signature
Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member
{'specialty': 'Forensic mechanical engineering', 'committee_role': "Member, technical subcommittee under Engineer A's committee", 'retaining_party': "Plaintiff's attorney"}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Plaintiff Attorney BER Case 19-3'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Standards Chair Expert Witness'}
Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees
Engineer B is retained as an expert by Plaintiffs attorney in a boiler explosion case
Engineer B's retention as Plaintiff's expert (Case 19-3) before Engineer A being approached by Defendant's attorney (Case 19-3)
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
Engineer B's retention as Plaintiff's expert (Case 19-3)
Engineer A being approached by Defendant's attorney (Case 19-3)
PE Exam History Materiality Assessment Capability
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Engineer Intern's intention to take PE exam before prospective employer's offer of employment
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
Engineer Intern's intention to take PE exam
prospective employer's offer of employment
Engineer Intern's two previous PE exam failures before conversation with prospective employer
Engineer Intern's two previous PE exam failures
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.
At the conclusion of the BER discussion and analysis, after all facts are evaluated
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.
Potential conflict with State M licensing statute requiring engineers providing testimony to be licensed in State M
Risk of blurring the line between engineering and non-engineering expert roles given Engineer A's credentials
Offering expertise within a recognized area of competence
Responding to a legitimate professional request for expert services
Honest representation of qualifications and scope of services
Public protection through licensure compliance
Provide qualified non-engineering expert services to Attorney X in State M, fulfilling a professional engagement
Duty to avoid undertaking engagements that create foreseeable legal or ethical conflicts
Duty to verify compliance with applicable state licensing laws before accepting an engagement
Ability to distinguish engineering from non-engineering expert roles
Knowledge of applicable state licensing laws
Initial contact, before case evaluation began
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.
Expert Engagement Acceptance → Licensing Gap Identified
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
Had Engineer A declined the engagement or obtained State M licensure prior to acceptance, no licensing gap would have been triggered
Absence of State M licensure at time of acceptance
Engineer A's decision to accept the engagement
State M jurisdictional authority over expert testimony
Combination of voluntary engagement acceptance + pre-existing licensure gap + State M's territorial jurisdiction over the proceeding
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.
At the time Attorney X contacts Engineer A, prior to any work beginning
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.
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states
Engineer A and the Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the ethical permissibility of signing the report without disclosing licensure status.
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.
Omission of P.E. designation alone may be insufficient to cure the licensing compliance problem
Remaining credential references might still invoke engineering identity and bring Engineer A under State M's licensing law
Partial attempt to comply with State M licensing statute by removing the explicit P.E. designation
Honest and complete representation of professional status
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
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
Judgment about how credential presentation affects legal compliance
Knowledge of state licensing laws and their scope
During report preparation, before signing
Duty to fully resolve jurisdictional compliance before signing and submitting the report
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.
PE Designation Omission → State Licensing Requirement Triggered
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
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
Deliberate choice to omit PE designation from credentials
Engineer A's prior knowledge of State M's licensure requirement
State M's enforceable statutory licensing standard for expert witnesses
Combination of known legal requirement + conscious omission of PE designation + continued participation in the proceeding
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.
1995 through 2020, prior to the current case
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.
Prior Case Precedent Established → Ethics Violation Concluded
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
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
BER's application of those precedents to Engineer A's specific fact pattern
Engineer A's conduct falling within the scope of behaviors addressed by prior cases
Existence of prior BER rulings addressing analogous credential and licensure conduct
Combination of established precedent + Engineer A's conduct matching precedent fact patterns + BER's interpretive application of precedent to current case
Was Engineer A’s self-description in the expert report ethical?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
After evaluation and opinion preparation, prior to testimony
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.
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.
Upon Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case, after Expert Engagement Acceptance
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.
State M Professional Engineering Licensure Statute
That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful
BER in determining that Engineer A's conduct constituted unlicensed practice
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
State M Expert Testimony Licensure Statute
State M legislature or engineering licensure board
State M Engineering Licensure Statute (Expert Testimony Provision)
Engineer A is subject to this statute when agreeing to provide expert testimony in State M courts.
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.
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The BER found the titles violated the Code's requirements for truthful public statements and prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.55
The BER found that the credential claim forfeited the non-engineering exception and constituted both unethical conduct and unlawful unlicensed practice in State M.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
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 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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
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
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
{'license': 'Licensed in multiple states, not in address state', 'issue': 'Resolved by clear identification of licensed states on business card'}
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.
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
{'license': 'Licensed in State C only', 'address': 'State B', 'services': 'Engineering in State C, non-engineering consulting in State B'}
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.
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.
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.
Jurisdictional Expert Testimony Licensure Constraint
At the time of preparing the expert report and providing testimony in State M
Case 04-11 Situation 2 Address Unlicensed State
Business card with address in unlicensed state
Explicit specification of licensed states on a business card provides sufficient clarity to avoid the conventional implication of licensure in the address state.
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 found ethical conformity was preserved because clarity was provided.
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.
Case 04-11 Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting
Non-engineering consulting services in unlicensed state
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.
Non-Engineering Expert Service Permissibility
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.
The BER found ethical conformity was preserved because the card provided clarity about the scope of licensure.
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.
During the period when ENGCO sale materials described inspection personnel as Engineer and Design Engineer
ENGCO's use of Engineer and Design Engineer titles for unlicensed, non-degreed personnel in sale materials
BER inquiry and finding that the references likely violated the Code of Ethics
ENGCO's publication of sale materials using Engineer and Design Engineer titles for personnel who were not licensed and did not hold engineering degrees
{'license': 'None', 'education': 'No college degree', 'title_used': 'Engineer and Design Engineer'}
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.
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
From the moment Engineer A signs the report through any correction or conclusion of the engagement
Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status
Credential Omission Misrepresentation State
Engineer A's signing of the expert report with a credential title that omits any reference to licensure status
Not terminated within the described scenario
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
Expert report signed in State M proceedings
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Licensure Omission Materiality
Professional Identity Transparency in Credentials
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Standards Chair Expert Witness
{'specialty': 'Forensic mechanical engineering', 'committee_role': 'Chair, boiler code standards and safety committee', 'retaining_party': "Defendant's attorney"}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Defendant Attorney BER Case 19-3'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Standards Subcommittee Member'}
Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
Engineer A is approached by Defendants attorney to serve as an expert in the case
From the point Engineer A agrees to provide testimony in State M through the conclusion of the engagement
The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M
Engineer A's provision of expert testimony in State M without holding a State M engineering license
Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E)
Engineer A agrees to provide expert testimony in State M while holding licenses only in States C, D, and E
{'license': 'Not yet licensed', 'exam_history': 'Two prior PE exam failures not disclosed', 'disclosure': 'Disclosed intent to take exam, did not disclose prior failures'}
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.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Prospective Employer BER Case 20-1'}
Engineer Intern PE Exam Failure Omission
During the employment interview and offer process
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
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
Engineer Intern disclosed the intention to take the PE exam but did not disclose two prior failures when not asked
Engineers A and B Opposing Experts Shared Committee
From the point Engineer A was approached to serve as defense expert through the conclusion of the litigation
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
Engineer A as committee chair and Engineer B as subcommittee member simultaneously serving as opposing experts in boiler explosion litigation
Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal of one expert from the engagement
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
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
{'jurisdiction': 'State M', 'engagement_type': 'Non-engineering expert testimony'}
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.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Consultant'}
Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
Engineer A Credential Representation Report
Expert report prepared for State M proceedings
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.
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.
Engineer A PE Designation Omission Partial Compliance
Expert report signature block in State M
Partial compliance with credential transparency obligations is insufficient when the remaining credential independently conveys the same professional status that was deliberately omitted.
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.'
Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Title Misuse
From the signing of the expert report through the BER review of the present case
Engineer A's use of Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in the report signature block in State M
Not resolved within the case facts; BER finding constitutes the resolution
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
Engineer A Non-Engineering Retention State M
From the point of retention through the signing of the expert report
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services
Engineer A's retention to provide non-engineering expert services in State M
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
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
Attorney retained Engineer A explicitly to provide non-engineering expert services in State M litigation
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.
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.
At the time of the employment offer and acceptance
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.
Engineering Title Use Accuracy Obligation
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.
At the time of preparing and distributing sale materials referencing personnel qualifications
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
Expert consulting and testimony engagement in State M
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Non-Engineering Engagement Permissibility
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.
Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Consultant
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.
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.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer in States C, D, and E', 'specialty': 'Forensic Engineering', 'certification': 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering', 'state_M_license': 'None'}
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.
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
{'type': 'subject_to', 'target': 'State M Licensing Statute'}
Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Permissibility
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.
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.
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.
Expert witness engagement in boiler explosion litigation
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.
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.
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
Engineer Intern PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure
Pre-employment disclosure to prospective employer
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.
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.
Sale materials describing inspection personnel
Using a protected professional title without holding the underlying qualification is unethical regardless of whether federal contract language also used the term.
Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Retention
From Attorney X's initial contact through Engineer A's agreement to evaluate, prepare opinion, and testify
Engineer A's engagement by Attorney X for non-engineering expert testimony in State M
Attorney X contacts Engineer A seeking a non-engineering expert, and Engineer A agrees to the engagement on that basis
Engineer A Opposing Expert Communication Restriction
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.
Expert Witness Opposing Counsel Communication Restriction Obligation
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.'
Throughout the duration of the pending litigation
Engineer A Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger
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.
Forensic Credential Licensure Trigger Awareness Obligation
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.
At the time of preparing and signing the expert report for use in State M.
Engineer A Forensic Diplomate Credential Use
Expert report signature block in State M litigation
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.
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.
Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure Verification
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.
Jurisdictional Licensure Verification Obligation
Before accepting the engagement and before preparing any report or providing testimony in State M.
Engineer A Credential Triggered Licensure Compliance
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.
Credential-Triggered Licensure Compliance Obligation
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.
{'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'}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Retaining Legal Counsel State M'}
Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report
by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the E word, Engineer
incorporating Engineer or Engineering into Engineer As signature brought Engineer A under the purview of State Ms licensing law
Engineer A Scope Recharacterization Avoidance
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.
Scope Recharacterization Avoidance Obligation
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.
At the time of accepting the engagement and before preparing the expert report.
Engineer A Credential Triggers State M Licensure
The act of claiming an engineering-titled credential in a professional document triggers jurisdictional licensure obligations regardless of how the underlying services were characterized.
Engineer A Jurisdictional Licensure State M
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Compliance
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.
Expert Witness Licensure Compliance Obligation
Prior to preparing the expert report and providing testimony in State M.